Lift Restrictions on Unisex Toilets

There are several regulations under HASAWA and elsewhere that restrict or prohibit unisex toilets in workplaces and public buildings, including entertainment venues. Properly managed unisex toilets make possible more flexible use of facilities.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are several regulations under HASAWA and elsewhere that restrict or prohibit unisex toilets in workplaces and public buildings, including entertainment venues. Properly managed unisex toilets make possible more flexible use of facilities.

 

 

Thatcher’s Needle Exchange Was Revolutionary

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Why is this idea important?

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Pulse-modulated microwave emissions from masts and mobile phones

Since residents and their pets – 2 got cancer – in my village suffered many symptoms immediately on activation of a phone mast near their homes, I have been studying the reason for the symptoms! Finally, after getting help from  Barrie Trower an expert on microwaves and Andrew Goldsworthy- expert on human biology, I know what is causing damage to human health and our whole environment!

It is the Pulse-modulated non-heating aspect of microwaves emitted from masts and phones which make us ill – causing damage to individual cells wherever they enter our bodies!

Individual Cells form impermeable skins when they sense emissions and cannot communicate with other cells – still living, they continue to develop into benign tumours or carcimonas. The microwaves pierce the skins and take calcium from the cell – in the brain -this is what causes Alzheimers in the old and Autism in the developing foetus in the womb!

In the heart and circulatory system the results are heart attacks; arrhythmia; nose-bleeds; raised blood pressure and strokes.

The worst aspects of microwave emissions are Tetra; Wi-Fi and Wi-Max. Wi-Fi in schools should never have been allowed without preceding stringent tests as children are particularly vulnerable – and there is evidence of damage to Chromosomes and the Human genome.

When have parents or teachers been given the informed opportunity to protect their helpless children against damage to their health? I consider Wi-Fi in schools to be an illegal experiment

 – See Barrie Trower's 'Open Letter to the Chair of the Police Federation' on Tetra being forced on policemen-quote:-

'I believe that this is breaking the law.** If your Officers are not informed of all aspects of this experiment; it contravenes the “Regulations and Ethical Guidelines” – Directives for Human Experimentation – Nuremberg Code (enclosed).  This is to say that the risks of all radiation experiments must be understood before it is started and it cannot be against their will.  At your Airwave Conference 23rd October 2002, your Dr Levey told your Officers: “Use it or resign”. 

 When I told the HPA of my discovery that epidemiological testa in Switzerland had proved that emissions inhibit melatonin – without which we cannot sleep, and insomnia being the main symptom in Kensworth – they refused to investigate on the grounds there is NO PROOF. The SYMPTOMS are the proof! See:Dr Neil Cherry;' EMR reduces melatonin in animals and people'. I hear rumours that the HPA is being abolished! That will save millions of pounds on useless tests which since the late 1990s have proved absolutely nothing -especially not that emissions are safe – because that is impossible!

glyden

Why is this idea important?

Since residents and their pets – 2 got cancer – in my village suffered many symptoms immediately on activation of a phone mast near their homes, I have been studying the reason for the symptoms! Finally, after getting help from  Barrie Trower an expert on microwaves and Andrew Goldsworthy- expert on human biology, I know what is causing damage to human health and our whole environment!

It is the Pulse-modulated non-heating aspect of microwaves emitted from masts and phones which make us ill – causing damage to individual cells wherever they enter our bodies!

Individual Cells form impermeable skins when they sense emissions and cannot communicate with other cells – still living, they continue to develop into benign tumours or carcimonas. The microwaves pierce the skins and take calcium from the cell – in the brain -this is what causes Alzheimers in the old and Autism in the developing foetus in the womb!

In the heart and circulatory system the results are heart attacks; arrhythmia; nose-bleeds; raised blood pressure and strokes.

The worst aspects of microwave emissions are Tetra; Wi-Fi and Wi-Max. Wi-Fi in schools should never have been allowed without preceding stringent tests as children are particularly vulnerable – and there is evidence of damage to Chromosomes and the Human genome.

When have parents or teachers been given the informed opportunity to protect their helpless children against damage to their health? I consider Wi-Fi in schools to be an illegal experiment

 – See Barrie Trower's 'Open Letter to the Chair of the Police Federation' on Tetra being forced on policemen-quote:-

'I believe that this is breaking the law.** If your Officers are not informed of all aspects of this experiment; it contravenes the “Regulations and Ethical Guidelines” – Directives for Human Experimentation – Nuremberg Code (enclosed).  This is to say that the risks of all radiation experiments must be understood before it is started and it cannot be against their will.  At your Airwave Conference 23rd October 2002, your Dr Levey told your Officers: “Use it or resign”. 

 When I told the HPA of my discovery that epidemiological testa in Switzerland had proved that emissions inhibit melatonin – without which we cannot sleep, and insomnia being the main symptom in Kensworth – they refused to investigate on the grounds there is NO PROOF. The SYMPTOMS are the proof! See:Dr Neil Cherry;' EMR reduces melatonin in animals and people'. I hear rumours that the HPA is being abolished! That will save millions of pounds on useless tests which since the late 1990s have proved absolutely nothing -especially not that emissions are safe – because that is impossible!

glyden

Disabled facilities grants

These are currently under scrutiny as all things are, however, the whole point of these is to help keep the most vulnerable people in society stay in their homes and out of hospital. The trouble is there is no joined up thinking, ie no-one knows how much money is actually saved, so PCTs do not directly understand the benefits, if they did there, would be more money put into it to help reduce the overall NHS costs not less

Why is this idea important?

These are currently under scrutiny as all things are, however, the whole point of these is to help keep the most vulnerable people in society stay in their homes and out of hospital. The trouble is there is no joined up thinking, ie no-one knows how much money is actually saved, so PCTs do not directly understand the benefits, if they did there, would be more money put into it to help reduce the overall NHS costs not less

Restore people’s and council’s right to turn down phone masts on health grounds.

In August 2001 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under John Prescott issued planning guidance to Councils which included PPG8 -Telecommunications. Regarding the health aspect of masts, this guidance contained three paragraphs:
 

Health Considerations

29. Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

30. However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

31. The Governments acceptance of the precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart Groups report "mobile phones and health"1 is limited to the specific recommendations in the Groups report and the Governments response to them. The report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed. In the Governments view, local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development.
 

Paragraphs 29 and 30 practically contradict each other. This piece of Government advice has been the subject of two court battles:

The first, on the 26th of September 2003 -Yasmin Skelt -v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS Limited: The First Secretary of State conceded the case which allowed a mast to be removed from Grove Way, Chorleywood on the basis that being within the ICNIRP guidelines did not stop the council from considering other scientific evidence with regard to the possible future health effects on the population close to the mast.

Then in November 2004 – T-Mobile UK Ltd v First Secretary of State: The First Secretary of State also lost the case, however this time the solicitors for The First Secretary of State were in The Court of Appeal fighting against a mobile phone operator. The ruling, which dismissed the appeal, effectively said that other than in exceptional circumstances, the council must accept being within ICNIRP guidelines as being safe, and cannot consider any further health evidence when deciding whether or not to give planning approval to a base station (mast). Observers have said that the case made by The First Secretary of State was very weak and did not offer any evidence that showed the limitations of the ICNIRP guidelines. "It was if they wanted to lose the case". The First Secretary of State declined to the appeal the decision. And as the previous case was settled before judgement, this became the case that is now cited in similar situations.
 

There is much evidence that the ICNIRP guidelines are not adequate for determining the health risk of mobile phones, masts or other wireless technology. The ICNIRP guidelines only take into account the heating effects of the radiation while many new studies show that health effects are caused through non thermal mechanisms, at levels far lower than the ICNIRP guidelines (See the Bioinitiative report, Reflex report and others). There are epidemiological studies that show that health problems increase proportionally the closer people (and animals) live to a mast. This would not be the case if the ICNIRP guidelines were ‘safe’.

Given that such evidence exists, it is farcical that the law can say that the ICNIRP guidelines = safe. It is like having a law that states “Bristol is on the moon”. Sadly it is not only farcical, it is also harmful to those people, such as my own family, who are adversely affected by this.

Why is this idea important?

In August 2001 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under John Prescott issued planning guidance to Councils which included PPG8 -Telecommunications. Regarding the health aspect of masts, this guidance contained three paragraphs:
 

Health Considerations

29. Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

30. However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

31. The Governments acceptance of the precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart Groups report "mobile phones and health"1 is limited to the specific recommendations in the Groups report and the Governments response to them. The report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed. In the Governments view, local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development.
 

Paragraphs 29 and 30 practically contradict each other. This piece of Government advice has been the subject of two court battles:

The first, on the 26th of September 2003 -Yasmin Skelt -v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS Limited: The First Secretary of State conceded the case which allowed a mast to be removed from Grove Way, Chorleywood on the basis that being within the ICNIRP guidelines did not stop the council from considering other scientific evidence with regard to the possible future health effects on the population close to the mast.

Then in November 2004 – T-Mobile UK Ltd v First Secretary of State: The First Secretary of State also lost the case, however this time the solicitors for The First Secretary of State were in The Court of Appeal fighting against a mobile phone operator. The ruling, which dismissed the appeal, effectively said that other than in exceptional circumstances, the council must accept being within ICNIRP guidelines as being safe, and cannot consider any further health evidence when deciding whether or not to give planning approval to a base station (mast). Observers have said that the case made by The First Secretary of State was very weak and did not offer any evidence that showed the limitations of the ICNIRP guidelines. "It was if they wanted to lose the case". The First Secretary of State declined to the appeal the decision. And as the previous case was settled before judgement, this became the case that is now cited in similar situations.
 

There is much evidence that the ICNIRP guidelines are not adequate for determining the health risk of mobile phones, masts or other wireless technology. The ICNIRP guidelines only take into account the heating effects of the radiation while many new studies show that health effects are caused through non thermal mechanisms, at levels far lower than the ICNIRP guidelines (See the Bioinitiative report, Reflex report and others). There are epidemiological studies that show that health problems increase proportionally the closer people (and animals) live to a mast. This would not be the case if the ICNIRP guidelines were ‘safe’.

Given that such evidence exists, it is farcical that the law can say that the ICNIRP guidelines = safe. It is like having a law that states “Bristol is on the moon”. Sadly it is not only farcical, it is also harmful to those people, such as my own family, who are adversely affected by this.

The Truth about Cannabis

 

Quite frankly, i'm shocked with society, the way people are forced to be materialistic and promote the destruction of the planet all for this precious 'profit'. I'm not a naturist but as Joe Rogan said, 'If an alien looked at earth and saw western civilization from space, it would look identical to a living organism infected with cancer.' Industrialization is like any other substance, best in moderation. 

Although, not all is bad, there is such a plant which has unprecedented potential. From clothing to food, Medicine to bio-fuel or simply using it for recreational purposes. Cannabis is quite literally a fuel for life. Furthermore there is a clear difference between harmful drugs such as Coke Heroin and Alcohol compared to cannabis which is harmful drugs have to be refined. Alcohol must go through a distillery similar to Coke and heroin. 

It is easy to see the effects of harmful drugs on society, Look at the rates of drink driving and assault motivated purely by alcoholic rage. I agree that most alcohol consumers are kind, but so are the majority of coke users, they just don't tell you they use the substance. 

In my opinion, It should be a crime to illegalize any natural substance due to its presence being proof that its existence is harmonious and most likely beneficial to our ecosystem. 

In conclusion, Please do whatever you can to help legalize Cannabis, too many innocent lives are ruined by the countries stern anti-cannbis laws and whos ambitions are crushed by the people who promised better chances. No Victim No Crime.

P.S. Please visit http://www.phoenixtears.ca/article/resources/links/granny-s-list/grannys-list.html It lists all of the scientific studies into the effects of Cannabis. 

P.P.S Im very proud of that source, there is so much evidence it is ludicrous to doubt the medical benefits of Cannabis anymore,

Why is this idea important?

 

Quite frankly, i'm shocked with society, the way people are forced to be materialistic and promote the destruction of the planet all for this precious 'profit'. I'm not a naturist but as Joe Rogan said, 'If an alien looked at earth and saw western civilization from space, it would look identical to a living organism infected with cancer.' Industrialization is like any other substance, best in moderation. 

Although, not all is bad, there is such a plant which has unprecedented potential. From clothing to food, Medicine to bio-fuel or simply using it for recreational purposes. Cannabis is quite literally a fuel for life. Furthermore there is a clear difference between harmful drugs such as Coke Heroin and Alcohol compared to cannabis which is harmful drugs have to be refined. Alcohol must go through a distillery similar to Coke and heroin. 

It is easy to see the effects of harmful drugs on society, Look at the rates of drink driving and assault motivated purely by alcoholic rage. I agree that most alcohol consumers are kind, but so are the majority of coke users, they just don't tell you they use the substance. 

In my opinion, It should be a crime to illegalize any natural substance due to its presence being proof that its existence is harmonious and most likely beneficial to our ecosystem. 

In conclusion, Please do whatever you can to help legalize Cannabis, too many innocent lives are ruined by the countries stern anti-cannbis laws and whos ambitions are crushed by the people who promised better chances. No Victim No Crime.

P.S. Please visit http://www.phoenixtears.ca/article/resources/links/granny-s-list/grannys-list.html It lists all of the scientific studies into the effects of Cannabis. 

P.P.S Im very proud of that source, there is so much evidence it is ludicrous to doubt the medical benefits of Cannabis anymore,

Supporting People Programme

The SP programme when used correctly has shown many wondeful outcoms to clients.

We are are provider of SP for clients with dementia delivering a short term services to empower and enable vulnerable people to stay independent and in their own homes for as long as possible.

Outcomes have included access to much needed services, telecare – to ensure client safety and security and family/unpaid carers peace of mind, liason with professionals as a clients advocate to resoves housing issues,monies concerns etc.

This service ensures vulnerable people who require a lower level of support,  gain immense benefit and improved quality of life, which in turn maintains their health and wellbeing and in many cases means higher level services at higher costs are not required

Key words bounding around PCT and LA's are reablement and preventative services, SP i believe helps support this and provides a value for money service required by people in our communities.

To cut some of the funding would be a disaster let alone losing it all together

Why is this idea important?

The SP programme when used correctly has shown many wondeful outcoms to clients.

We are are provider of SP for clients with dementia delivering a short term services to empower and enable vulnerable people to stay independent and in their own homes for as long as possible.

Outcomes have included access to much needed services, telecare – to ensure client safety and security and family/unpaid carers peace of mind, liason with professionals as a clients advocate to resoves housing issues,monies concerns etc.

This service ensures vulnerable people who require a lower level of support,  gain immense benefit and improved quality of life, which in turn maintains their health and wellbeing and in many cases means higher level services at higher costs are not required

Key words bounding around PCT and LA's are reablement and preventative services, SP i believe helps support this and provides a value for money service required by people in our communities.

To cut some of the funding would be a disaster let alone losing it all together

Assess the elderly at home before they become demented/mentally ill

i wish social workers could go from house to house to look for the elderly who live by themselves and start monitering  their mental states so that they get help before they get worse only to end up occupying the hospital beds waiting for assessment by social workers and looking for placements for them when it is too late.

Why is this idea important?

i wish social workers could go from house to house to look for the elderly who live by themselves and start monitering  their mental states so that they get help before they get worse only to end up occupying the hospital beds waiting for assessment by social workers and looking for placements for them when it is too late.

MAKE IT COMPULSORY FOR ALL LICENCED PREMISES TO OFFER AT LEAST ONE NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER

Like many people my social life is centred around pubs, bars and restaurants , but when I was diagnosed with a liver issue at the beginning of this year I became teetotal.

It was only then that I realised how few pubs and bars in the UK sell non-alcoholic beers (and often accompany this message with a suppressed snigger that someone could want such a thing). 

This rather archaic approach is completely in contrast to the Continent. I travel to France, Spain and Switzerland regularly and it is very rare to find any bar that does not sell at least one version of a non-alcoholic beer. The irony is, that because of this, the selection and quality are far superior to that which can be found in the UK.

Given the Governments drive to improve our health and cut down on drinking and driving it would seem that my suggestion could only provide positive benefits.

Why is this idea important?

Like many people my social life is centred around pubs, bars and restaurants , but when I was diagnosed with a liver issue at the beginning of this year I became teetotal.

It was only then that I realised how few pubs and bars in the UK sell non-alcoholic beers (and often accompany this message with a suppressed snigger that someone could want such a thing). 

This rather archaic approach is completely in contrast to the Continent. I travel to France, Spain and Switzerland regularly and it is very rare to find any bar that does not sell at least one version of a non-alcoholic beer. The irony is, that because of this, the selection and quality are far superior to that which can be found in the UK.

Given the Governments drive to improve our health and cut down on drinking and driving it would seem that my suggestion could only provide positive benefits.

Cost savings from improved G.P. heart monitoring

All GP's should be correctly trained & retrained to both operate and understand ECG eqipment and the diagnosis of traces obtained.

Currently most, if not all GP's blanch when ECG's are mentioned, preferring to pass this important function to a local hospital.

Some GP's have set up so-called heart surgeries that are simple in terms of what results are found, and usually stick to weight & blood pressure.

Most small local hospitals do not have cardiology experts available 24hrs/day, and therefore any request for an ECG will probably be too long to wait for the person needs it.

Why is this idea important?

All GP's should be correctly trained & retrained to both operate and understand ECG eqipment and the diagnosis of traces obtained.

Currently most, if not all GP's blanch when ECG's are mentioned, preferring to pass this important function to a local hospital.

Some GP's have set up so-called heart surgeries that are simple in terms of what results are found, and usually stick to weight & blood pressure.

Most small local hospitals do not have cardiology experts available 24hrs/day, and therefore any request for an ECG will probably be too long to wait for the person needs it.

Pharmacists, Technicians and the Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service, Department of Health and Pharamcy bodies must work together to remove the threat of criminal conviction if an inadvertent dispensing error is made.

Why is this idea important?

The Crown Prosecution Service, Department of Health and Pharamcy bodies must work together to remove the threat of criminal conviction if an inadvertent dispensing error is made.

General Pharmaceutical Council – fee payment

The General Pharmaceutical Council will be set-up in September as the regulator for Pharmacy. Renewals will become valid 12 months after entering the register.

The GPhC needs to be given the power to

  • set part-year payments in order to avoid a rolling register and
  • needs the power to move the renewal date away form 1st January which is always a public holiday or other non-trading day.

Why is this idea important?

The General Pharmaceutical Council will be set-up in September as the regulator for Pharmacy. Renewals will become valid 12 months after entering the register.

The GPhC needs to be given the power to

  • set part-year payments in order to avoid a rolling register and
  • needs the power to move the renewal date away form 1st January which is always a public holiday or other non-trading day.

Motivate more mothers to breastfeed; withdraw vouchers for free formula

Given sufficient information, encouragement and support, 999 new mothers out of 1000 will lactate within 3 days of birth and are physically capable of breastfeeding their babies.  Yet Britain has the third lowest breastfeeding rates in the world.  Breastfeeding provides the optimum nutritional, immunological and emotional benefits for babies and toddlers, whereas infant formula feeding is unnecessary and risky, costing our healthcare system millions of £££ in treating extra infections (doctor's visits, antibiotics, hospitalizations.)  Mothers want the best for their babies, if only they know what that is.  Help provide better incentives for more mothers to breastfeed, and for longer 1) Withdraw free infant formula milk from Healthy Start Vouchers, see http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/en/fe/get_the_vouchers.html   and 2) use the mooney saved to enable more mothers to breastfeed more easily by supporting better, up to date, evidence-based infant feeding training for doctors, midwives and health visitors and certification of more Baby-Friendly Hospitals (see www.unicef.org.uk )

Why is this idea important?

Given sufficient information, encouragement and support, 999 new mothers out of 1000 will lactate within 3 days of birth and are physically capable of breastfeeding their babies.  Yet Britain has the third lowest breastfeeding rates in the world.  Breastfeeding provides the optimum nutritional, immunological and emotional benefits for babies and toddlers, whereas infant formula feeding is unnecessary and risky, costing our healthcare system millions of £££ in treating extra infections (doctor's visits, antibiotics, hospitalizations.)  Mothers want the best for their babies, if only they know what that is.  Help provide better incentives for more mothers to breastfeed, and for longer 1) Withdraw free infant formula milk from Healthy Start Vouchers, see http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/en/fe/get_the_vouchers.html   and 2) use the mooney saved to enable more mothers to breastfeed more easily by supporting better, up to date, evidence-based infant feeding training for doctors, midwives and health visitors and certification of more Baby-Friendly Hospitals (see www.unicef.org.uk )

Prevent the creation of the Health Act 2010

The planned Health Act 2010 will de-nationalise the NHS and will give the EU control over healthcare  provision in the UK. Section 4.27 says that NHS providers (that is, NHS hospitals) will be subject to competition law and the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor will enforce this. The effect of this will make hospitals subject to EU competiton laws and hence the EU Commissioner for Competition (Joaquín Almunia) will have the powers over healthcare provision and will be able to close your local NHS hospital.

Why is this idea important?

The planned Health Act 2010 will de-nationalise the NHS and will give the EU control over healthcare  provision in the UK. Section 4.27 says that NHS providers (that is, NHS hospitals) will be subject to competition law and the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor will enforce this. The effect of this will make hospitals subject to EU competiton laws and hence the EU Commissioner for Competition (Joaquín Almunia) will have the powers over healthcare provision and will be able to close your local NHS hospital.

Set up a National Care Funding Authority

Care funding within local authorities is complex – different "teams" for the same purpose, e.g. learning disdabilities. This is one quango that could save money and deliver better care resources for all – disables, old, etc.

 

Why is this idea important?

Care funding within local authorities is complex – different "teams" for the same purpose, e.g. learning disdabilities. This is one quango that could save money and deliver better care resources for all – disables, old, etc.

 

Decriminalise Cannabis and Hemp growth – watch this documentary please

The Union. This Canadian documentary was going to be ANTI-Cannabis.  After two years of research and lots of hard work they found the real truth. Interviews with Doctors, Medical Professors, Biologists, Former Police and Politicians – a must watch.

You tell me I cannot grow and smoke a natural plant that grows out of the ground and has been used for thousands of years? This is ridiculous and is a clear breach of human rights as well as civil liberties.

The fact that in the UK now in a secret location, there is a drug company that are trying to synthesis cannabis just so they can put it in a pill and sell it.  This quite frankly is SICK.  If your Doctor was able to recommend a plant, where would the pharmaceutical companies be then?

Look at the facts, tell me how many people have ever died due to cannabis use? compare this number with the thousands of people who have died abusing and using the far more dangerous drugs of Alcohol and Tobacco.

Look at the prohibition of Alcohol, did that work?

This unjustified war on drugs has gone on too long, just because Nixion didn't want a Vietnam war protest – arrest the pot smoking protesters = no protest.

The prohibition of Hemp was tied in with Cannabis as the people who decided the laws had shares in timber companies.  Funny that hemp creates better, stronger paper for a quarter of the price! Not to mention over 60,000 other uses including bio-fuels. 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Union. This Canadian documentary was going to be ANTI-Cannabis.  After two years of research and lots of hard work they found the real truth. Interviews with Doctors, Medical Professors, Biologists, Former Police and Politicians – a must watch.

You tell me I cannot grow and smoke a natural plant that grows out of the ground and has been used for thousands of years? This is ridiculous and is a clear breach of human rights as well as civil liberties.

The fact that in the UK now in a secret location, there is a drug company that are trying to synthesis cannabis just so they can put it in a pill and sell it.  This quite frankly is SICK.  If your Doctor was able to recommend a plant, where would the pharmaceutical companies be then?

Look at the facts, tell me how many people have ever died due to cannabis use? compare this number with the thousands of people who have died abusing and using the far more dangerous drugs of Alcohol and Tobacco.

Look at the prohibition of Alcohol, did that work?

This unjustified war on drugs has gone on too long, just because Nixion didn't want a Vietnam war protest – arrest the pot smoking protesters = no protest.

The prohibition of Hemp was tied in with Cannabis as the people who decided the laws had shares in timber companies.  Funny that hemp creates better, stronger paper for a quarter of the price! Not to mention over 60,000 other uses including bio-fuels. 

 

Smoking ban ( enforcement)

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Why is this idea important?

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Human Rights Act to Apply to Benefit Claimants Too Sick To Work

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.