restoring liberty and freedom

the best way to restore the lost civil liberties in this country is to pull out of that cesspit of corruption and bring back real democracy to this country especially repelling that odious human rights act.

also the powers of the insiduos health and safety executive should be greatly reduced so a more common sense approach can be reintroduced

Why is this idea important?

the best way to restore the lost civil liberties in this country is to pull out of that cesspit of corruption and bring back real democracy to this country especially repelling that odious human rights act.

also the powers of the insiduos health and safety executive should be greatly reduced so a more common sense approach can be reintroduced

Repeal laws which diminish parental responsibility

All laws which seek to diminish the right/duty of parents to be responsible for their children should be repealed.

 

This would cover such acts as the use of child seats in cars, the right to know what medical/lifestyle advice is being given to them etc

 

It would also ensure that parents are responsible, in law, for the acts of their children and so be liable to make recompense.

Why is this idea important?

All laws which seek to diminish the right/duty of parents to be responsible for their children should be repealed.

 

This would cover such acts as the use of child seats in cars, the right to know what medical/lifestyle advice is being given to them etc

 

It would also ensure that parents are responsible, in law, for the acts of their children and so be liable to make recompense.

Repeal all laws designed to protect ourselves from ourselves

All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.

 

We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.

Why is this idea important?

All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.

 

We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.

Freedom of movement

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

No Abusing Of European Directives To Add Contentious Laws And Conditions Not Included In The Original Versions.

This proposal is to help prevent basic Directives, issued by the European Parliament from being "gold-plated", added to and used by British politicians as a surreptitious means of passing legislation into UK law without due Parliamentary debate and passage into law.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal is to help prevent basic Directives, issued by the European Parliament from being "gold-plated", added to and used by British politicians as a surreptitious means of passing legislation into UK law without due Parliamentary debate and passage into law.

Turn off the talking trains, train stations and buses

For the past two years or so we have been forced to suffer a womans voice telling us from a satellite (I believe…?)  in space the same boring, intrusive messages about the stops or stations we are approaching, the final destination of the public vehicle which we are sitting down. Even while we wait for trains a man's voice tells us not to leave luggage on platforms, etc,etc. It's too much. When I recently went to Lymington, the lovely old fashioned train rendered a silent journey but the new train with un openable doors which requires the employment of an extra guard to open and close the doors has the ruddy female voice on it. There's too MUCH noise telling us to do this and not to do that. Its like the Nanny State via the invisible faceless voice. Do we really need this? Apart from the unnecessary noise it intrudes constantly upon our thoughts and right to peace and quiet .

Why is this idea important?

For the past two years or so we have been forced to suffer a womans voice telling us from a satellite (I believe…?)  in space the same boring, intrusive messages about the stops or stations we are approaching, the final destination of the public vehicle which we are sitting down. Even while we wait for trains a man's voice tells us not to leave luggage on platforms, etc,etc. It's too much. When I recently went to Lymington, the lovely old fashioned train rendered a silent journey but the new train with un openable doors which requires the employment of an extra guard to open and close the doors has the ruddy female voice on it. There's too MUCH noise telling us to do this and not to do that. Its like the Nanny State via the invisible faceless voice. Do we really need this? Apart from the unnecessary noise it intrudes constantly upon our thoughts and right to peace and quiet .

Abolish the Health and Safety Executive and all Health and Safety Regulation

Abolish the Health and Safety Executive and all Health and Safety Regulation.

This idea could have been suggested on any of the website’s three sections:

1. 'Restore civil liberties' – Just this morning a "health and safety" fiat was issued by a lady to stop me pouring my own coffee in the work canteen.  It seems "health and safety" can used as a password to stop people from doing anything.

2. 'Repealing unnecessary laws' – There are already laws against polluting the environment, poisoning people’s food, etc (protecting health) and laws against negligence/recklessness (protecting safety). Is there a need for double laws?

3. ‘Cutting business and third sector regulations’ – The amount of time wasted complying with nonsense regulations in my laboratory is ridiculous. I’m sure it’s the same in every workplace and is costing the country a fortune.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the Health and Safety Executive and all Health and Safety Regulation.

This idea could have been suggested on any of the website’s three sections:

1. 'Restore civil liberties' – Just this morning a "health and safety" fiat was issued by a lady to stop me pouring my own coffee in the work canteen.  It seems "health and safety" can used as a password to stop people from doing anything.

2. 'Repealing unnecessary laws' – There are already laws against polluting the environment, poisoning people’s food, etc (protecting health) and laws against negligence/recklessness (protecting safety). Is there a need for double laws?

3. ‘Cutting business and third sector regulations’ – The amount of time wasted complying with nonsense regulations in my laboratory is ridiculous. I’m sure it’s the same in every workplace and is costing the country a fortune.

Liable To Be Sued For Clearing Ice From Public Pavements

Repeal the law whereby householders and companies open themselves up for legal action if they clear a public pavement of snow and ice, but not if they don't.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the law whereby householders and companies open themselves up for legal action if they clear a public pavement of snow and ice, but not if they don't.

crazy H&S rules on building sites

how did it get so crazy. when I go on a building site I now have to undertake a one day H&S briefing… this is for each and every site even if like in my job I might attend 10 different sites in a month. When on site I am treated like a little boy and made to wear hard boots, hard hat, gloves, goggles and High visibility top. Theres an argument for hard, boots and high visibility tops but the rest is just plain stupid. There's a huge amount of red tape and 'arse covering' and very little of it actually makes me any safer.

Why is this idea important?

how did it get so crazy. when I go on a building site I now have to undertake a one day H&S briefing… this is for each and every site even if like in my job I might attend 10 different sites in a month. When on site I am treated like a little boy and made to wear hard boots, hard hat, gloves, goggles and High visibility top. Theres an argument for hard, boots and high visibility tops but the rest is just plain stupid. There's a huge amount of red tape and 'arse covering' and very little of it actually makes me any safer.

Free pupils and teachers from ridiculous health & safety

My mum is a teacher and runs a lot of school trips. She is require by law for children up to the age of 18 (eg drama trips) to perform ludicrous health & safety checks.

Taking a group of year 13s (aged 17 to 18) to see a performance in the National Theatre last October she was required to:

-make sure none of the pupils touched the doors of the Underground carriages for fear of germs

-check there were no bombs under their seats in the Theatre, despite it having its own Bomb Removal and Safety team

-make sure that no pupils had to sit next to a (SHOCK HORROR) member of the regular public, placing herself between the defenseless student and the presumably menacing member of the public.

And that's just one example of one trip. She's also not even allowed to pat a pupil on the back when he had a breakdown in front of her and started crying (caused by A-Level stress, but that's a different kettle of fish).

REPEAL THIS NONSENSE!

Why is this idea important?

My mum is a teacher and runs a lot of school trips. She is require by law for children up to the age of 18 (eg drama trips) to perform ludicrous health & safety checks.

Taking a group of year 13s (aged 17 to 18) to see a performance in the National Theatre last October she was required to:

-make sure none of the pupils touched the doors of the Underground carriages for fear of germs

-check there were no bombs under their seats in the Theatre, despite it having its own Bomb Removal and Safety team

-make sure that no pupils had to sit next to a (SHOCK HORROR) member of the regular public, placing herself between the defenseless student and the presumably menacing member of the public.

And that's just one example of one trip. She's also not even allowed to pat a pupil on the back when he had a breakdown in front of her and started crying (caused by A-Level stress, but that's a different kettle of fish).

REPEAL THIS NONSENSE!

Trivialising Health and Safety

Make it an offence or such to  use Health and Safety Laws (or peoples interpretation) as an excuse for not fulfilling an obligation or allowing people do to things. Recently I took a day off work to help push a wheelchair bound lady onboard a ferry but upon arrival and allegedly because of Health and Safety Laws, the company had to provide a member of staff to do it – I was not allowed and so had wasted my efforts. I later found out after being greatly inconvenienced the company had made it up. Also a shop selling dried flowers recently stated "Health and Safety say we can't have dried flowers anymore because they can catch fire" (well, so can paper and they had shelves full!!) Because people do this it trivialises health and safety laws which has been put in place for the good of the country and its people and is being used as an over zealous excuse. Please stop people doing this.

Why is this idea important?

Make it an offence or such to  use Health and Safety Laws (or peoples interpretation) as an excuse for not fulfilling an obligation or allowing people do to things. Recently I took a day off work to help push a wheelchair bound lady onboard a ferry but upon arrival and allegedly because of Health and Safety Laws, the company had to provide a member of staff to do it – I was not allowed and so had wasted my efforts. I later found out after being greatly inconvenienced the company had made it up. Also a shop selling dried flowers recently stated "Health and Safety say we can't have dried flowers anymore because they can catch fire" (well, so can paper and they had shelves full!!) Because people do this it trivialises health and safety laws which has been put in place for the good of the country and its people and is being used as an over zealous excuse. Please stop people doing this.

Revise Management of Heralth & Safety at Work Regulations

Revise the regulations to clarify the concepts of acceptable risks and trivial severities in absolute terms in order to target singnificant risks.

Why is this idea important?

Revise the regulations to clarify the concepts of acceptable risks and trivial severities in absolute terms in order to target singnificant risks.

Red Tape – Stop Local Authorities overurning gravestones

We all know of the isolated incidents there have been in the past, when yobs have injured themselves when vandalising gravestones.  This has resulted in a disproportionate response by Local Authorities – applying the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1982 to push over any gravestones appearing to have loose foundations.

This action is not only damaging our nation's heritage of commemorated burials and genealogical research, but is causing many historic churchyards to have the appearance of being vandalised.

This is gilt-edged red tape, and a relatively recent phenomenon which needs scrapping – urgently.

 

Why is this idea important?

We all know of the isolated incidents there have been in the past, when yobs have injured themselves when vandalising gravestones.  This has resulted in a disproportionate response by Local Authorities – applying the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1982 to push over any gravestones appearing to have loose foundations.

This action is not only damaging our nation's heritage of commemorated burials and genealogical research, but is causing many historic churchyards to have the appearance of being vandalised.

This is gilt-edged red tape, and a relatively recent phenomenon which needs scrapping – urgently.

 

Reinstating newspaper deliveries

My newsagent tells me that he does not provide a newspaper deliver service in the mornings because healthy and safety regulations require him to be personally responsible for the newspaper boys or girls' bicycle. He has to ensure it has working brakes, pumped up tyres, good lights, and that they are wearing cycle helmets.

Why is this idea important?

My newsagent tells me that he does not provide a newspaper deliver service in the mornings because healthy and safety regulations require him to be personally responsible for the newspaper boys or girls' bicycle. He has to ensure it has working brakes, pumped up tyres, good lights, and that they are wearing cycle helmets.

Health and safety laws and risk assessments

The requirement of the Health and Safety Legistlation have been taken to unreasonable extremes such that they are creating unnecessary red tape, taking away a persons awareness, making individuals risk averse and costing a great deal in training, equipment and common sense. 

In the last 3 weeks I have become aware of a group of staff who were volunteers on an environmental project who could not cut the grass with a lawn mower until they had gone through a 2 hour training course on the use of the machine:  Of staff who where told that they could not use fire extinguishers on a fire in case they chose the wrong one.  A ballet class where at exam time the children had to go from one room to another 10 yds through a public area so the parents had to be police checked to accompany them:  Of a first aid box that could not contain any scissors, tweezers, plasters, paracetamol or medicines as they were dangerous; a canal that was dewatered and all the staff attending had to wear life jackets beasue they were within 5 m of the canal even if there was no water in it and my window cleaner who can no longer use a ladder.

The proposal is to abolish the risk assessment element but keep the fines for breaches resulting in dealth and injury.   The common sense of the business should judge how to take the most appropriate measures.  A website could be put up to illustrate inappropriate health and safety meaures,

Why is this idea important?

The requirement of the Health and Safety Legistlation have been taken to unreasonable extremes such that they are creating unnecessary red tape, taking away a persons awareness, making individuals risk averse and costing a great deal in training, equipment and common sense. 

In the last 3 weeks I have become aware of a group of staff who were volunteers on an environmental project who could not cut the grass with a lawn mower until they had gone through a 2 hour training course on the use of the machine:  Of staff who where told that they could not use fire extinguishers on a fire in case they chose the wrong one.  A ballet class where at exam time the children had to go from one room to another 10 yds through a public area so the parents had to be police checked to accompany them:  Of a first aid box that could not contain any scissors, tweezers, plasters, paracetamol or medicines as they were dangerous; a canal that was dewatered and all the staff attending had to wear life jackets beasue they were within 5 m of the canal even if there was no water in it and my window cleaner who can no longer use a ladder.

The proposal is to abolish the risk assessment element but keep the fines for breaches resulting in dealth and injury.   The common sense of the business should judge how to take the most appropriate measures.  A website could be put up to illustrate inappropriate health and safety meaures,

Tenant opt-out of Gas Safety Regulations 1998 – Annual safety check by Landlords. (Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451)

I am a tenant.

 

Every year my Landlord is forced to inspect my gas appliances in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

 

Each year I get strongly worded letters from my Landlord about legal action if I fail to comply and my landlord's "legal duties" to inspect my gas appliances.


These gas safety checks are an unwarranted invasion of my privacy. In all the years the checks have been happening, nothing unsafe has ever been detected therefore I suggest tenants should be able to opt-out of these safety checks if the tenant so desires. These safety checks are a waste of time and money. These safety checks invade my privacy without valid cause.


I am sick and tired of being told: “Failure to allow access may result in legal proceedings and issued, the costs of which you will be liable.”


If there is anything unsafe with my gas appliances I will be the first person to contact my Landlord. Instead of this nanny-state intervention I think tenants should be free to make their own judgements regarding when their gas appliances need servicing, or at least tenants should be able to opt-out of the annual: “SERVICE AND SAFETY CHECK OF GAS APPLIANCES.”


I simply want to protect my right to a private life.

Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm

 

See also "DUTIES OF LANDLORDS"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245104.htm#36

Why is this idea important?

I am a tenant.

 

Every year my Landlord is forced to inspect my gas appliances in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

 

Each year I get strongly worded letters from my Landlord about legal action if I fail to comply and my landlord's "legal duties" to inspect my gas appliances.


These gas safety checks are an unwarranted invasion of my privacy. In all the years the checks have been happening, nothing unsafe has ever been detected therefore I suggest tenants should be able to opt-out of these safety checks if the tenant so desires. These safety checks are a waste of time and money. These safety checks invade my privacy without valid cause.


I am sick and tired of being told: “Failure to allow access may result in legal proceedings and issued, the costs of which you will be liable.”


If there is anything unsafe with my gas appliances I will be the first person to contact my Landlord. Instead of this nanny-state intervention I think tenants should be free to make their own judgements regarding when their gas appliances need servicing, or at least tenants should be able to opt-out of the annual: “SERVICE AND SAFETY CHECK OF GAS APPLIANCES.”


I simply want to protect my right to a private life.

Statutory Instrument 1998 No. 2451

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982451.htm

 

See also "DUTIES OF LANDLORDS"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1998/98245104.htm#36

Health and Safety legislation versus loss of fun

Heath and Safety laws are generally good, despite the public perception, and have delivered an enormous reduction in accidents. But it’s a question of balance. On the one hand we don’t want accidents, on the other we don’t want to be killjoys. We have reached the point at which any drive for a further reduction in accidents may lead to too much restriction on activities which could go ahead as long as the participants agree to take the risks.

The problem is in the Law where the official test is the risk being “As Low As Reasonably Practicable.” So things are banned or modified for safety reasons no matter what the consequences are to loss of “fun” because a Court deems that it is practicable (cost effective) to reduce the risk. So this test needs so be replaced by “as low as reasonably possible until cost or loss of amenity, etc. outweigh the reduction in risk”.

How this would actually be interpreted in a Court of Law is difficult to foresee as how do you assess loss of amenity against improvement in safety?

Also people should be allowed to waive their right to comeback if they are prepared to take the risk with eyes open.

Why is this idea important?

Heath and Safety laws are generally good, despite the public perception, and have delivered an enormous reduction in accidents. But it’s a question of balance. On the one hand we don’t want accidents, on the other we don’t want to be killjoys. We have reached the point at which any drive for a further reduction in accidents may lead to too much restriction on activities which could go ahead as long as the participants agree to take the risks.

The problem is in the Law where the official test is the risk being “As Low As Reasonably Practicable.” So things are banned or modified for safety reasons no matter what the consequences are to loss of “fun” because a Court deems that it is practicable (cost effective) to reduce the risk. So this test needs so be replaced by “as low as reasonably possible until cost or loss of amenity, etc. outweigh the reduction in risk”.

How this would actually be interpreted in a Court of Law is difficult to foresee as how do you assess loss of amenity against improvement in safety?

Also people should be allowed to waive their right to comeback if they are prepared to take the risk with eyes open.

Reduce Health and Safety burden and beurocracy

Health and safety regulations are burdensome and difficult to police. A heavy weight of beurocracy has arisen over the H&S which unsustainable and too expensive.

The laws and regulations need to be reformed and simplified.

Why is this idea important?

Health and safety regulations are burdensome and difficult to police. A heavy weight of beurocracy has arisen over the H&S which unsustainable and too expensive.

The laws and regulations need to be reformed and simplified.

Scrap the Health & Safety Executive

This organisation had grown completely out of hand.  Ridiculous rules abound.  ( teachers wearing safety goggles when using PritStick, for example)   Companies now have to spend huge sums of money having risk assessments carried out. Let the people become responsible for their own actions, and not look to blame someone every time they do something .

 

 

Why is this idea important?

This organisation had grown completely out of hand.  Ridiculous rules abound.  ( teachers wearing safety goggles when using PritStick, for example)   Companies now have to spend huge sums of money having risk assessments carried out. Let the people become responsible for their own actions, and not look to blame someone every time they do something .

 

 

Disband the Health & Safety Executive

Many ideas here relate to the problems casued by the Health & Safety Excecutive.    Whether it is risk assessments, stopping the use of ladders, the list is endless.  I do not know the annual budget of this organisation, but no doubt it would frighten me if I did.

The problem is that the HSE arfe desperate to make health & safety a proactive thing.  The risk assessment is an example of this.  FIll out lots of forms before doing something (to try to stop an accident) rather than prosecuting a negligent employer later on for doing something stupid and dangerous.

So why not just get rid the of the HSE and make enforcement of health and safety legislation the responsibility of the police? It works in many other countries.

Why is this idea important?

Many ideas here relate to the problems casued by the Health & Safety Excecutive.    Whether it is risk assessments, stopping the use of ladders, the list is endless.  I do not know the annual budget of this organisation, but no doubt it would frighten me if I did.

The problem is that the HSE arfe desperate to make health & safety a proactive thing.  The risk assessment is an example of this.  FIll out lots of forms before doing something (to try to stop an accident) rather than prosecuting a negligent employer later on for doing something stupid and dangerous.

So why not just get rid the of the HSE and make enforcement of health and safety legislation the responsibility of the police? It works in many other countries.

Create a modernized “opt-out” option for the DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Why is this idea important?

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Change the presumption of risk applied to everyday items

Would it be possible for the courts to assume that everyday household objects, such as kettles or screwdrivers, are not dangerous to any reasonable adult as long as they are kept in good working order? Things that any intelligent person already knows how to use should not give rise to lawsuits.

 

I am not a lawyer and I do realise this would be complicated to carry out…..!

Why is this idea important?

Would it be possible for the courts to assume that everyday household objects, such as kettles or screwdrivers, are not dangerous to any reasonable adult as long as they are kept in good working order? Things that any intelligent person already knows how to use should not give rise to lawsuits.

 

I am not a lawyer and I do realise this would be complicated to carry out…..!

helping disabled passengers

the health and safety regulations that prevent bus drivers, tube and railway staff from helping disabled and other passangers such as pregnant women with luggage, wheelchairs and buggies need to be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

the health and safety regulations that prevent bus drivers, tube and railway staff from helping disabled and other passangers such as pregnant women with luggage, wheelchairs and buggies need to be scrapped.

Reduce the Health and Safety Regulation

To make the HSE more friendly, and to have a regulation that accepts freak accidents, as freak accidents and does not prosecute people who are trying hard to run a safe buisness

(over regulation and blame culture doesn't help anybody.)

 

The 1974 act says you will keep people safe at work, it should say within reason.

Thankyou 

Why is this idea important?

To make the HSE more friendly, and to have a regulation that accepts freak accidents, as freak accidents and does not prosecute people who are trying hard to run a safe buisness

(over regulation and blame culture doesn't help anybody.)

 

The 1974 act says you will keep people safe at work, it should say within reason.

Thankyou