Stop marketing practices which commercialise infant feeding and threaten breastfeeding.

 

To Protect Breastfeding and to protect babies fed on formula, enabling mothers to care for their babies in an environment which is free from commercial pressure.

 

This aim can be achieved by bringing UK and European legislation into line with the International Code and subsequent relevant WHA Resolutions.  This will help parents base their decisions about infant feeding on truly independent evidence-based information. 

 

Its key points are: 

• No promotion of breastmilk substitutes, bottles etc. 

• No free samples or gifts to mothers. 

• Information materials and labels must warn of the risks of artificial feeding and information must not idealise  artificial feeding or discourage breastfeeding. 

• Information materials and labels should warn that powdered infant formula may contain harmful bacteria. 

• No free or low-cost supplies of breastmilk substitutes. 

• No promotion in health care facilities or gifts to health workers (samples for evaluation only). 

• Product information must be limited to factual and scientific information for health workers. 

• No sales incentives for staff or contact with mothers. 

• No promotion of ANY product targeting babies under six months. Complementary foods should not be marketed in ways that undermine breastfeeding. 

  • Governments must provide objective information on infant feeding, avoiding conflicts of interest in funding infant feeding programmes. 

 

For more info http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/resources/whychangelaw.html

Why is this idea important?

 

To Protect Breastfeding and to protect babies fed on formula, enabling mothers to care for their babies in an environment which is free from commercial pressure.

 

This aim can be achieved by bringing UK and European legislation into line with the International Code and subsequent relevant WHA Resolutions.  This will help parents base their decisions about infant feeding on truly independent evidence-based information. 

 

Its key points are: 

• No promotion of breastmilk substitutes, bottles etc. 

• No free samples or gifts to mothers. 

• Information materials and labels must warn of the risks of artificial feeding and information must not idealise  artificial feeding or discourage breastfeeding. 

• Information materials and labels should warn that powdered infant formula may contain harmful bacteria. 

• No free or low-cost supplies of breastmilk substitutes. 

• No promotion in health care facilities or gifts to health workers (samples for evaluation only). 

• Product information must be limited to factual and scientific information for health workers. 

• No sales incentives for staff or contact with mothers. 

• No promotion of ANY product targeting babies under six months. Complementary foods should not be marketed in ways that undermine breastfeeding. 

  • Governments must provide objective information on infant feeding, avoiding conflicts of interest in funding infant feeding programmes. 

 

For more info http://www.babyfeedinglawgroup.org.uk/resources/whychangelaw.html

Ban patents on medical equipment, treatments and drugs.

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Why is this idea important?

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Human Rights in Housing, the Dysfunctional Nanny State.

I think it is a great mistake to house people at random under one roof without consideration for the consequences as housing organisations do . People with grave mental problems or addictions can create big problems to their neighbours but housing organisations are less concerned about this than they should be and I'm not the first to say this! Why must somebody who is violent and very aggressive to his or her near neighbours, for example, be suffered and given more legal rights over so called normal people who might just want to live their lives in peace? It is very hard to evict them or to be protected from their behaviour, no matter what they do, for the law states that, because they have 'mental health problems' they have more rights than the other residents, which means rights to create absolute hell for other people and not be evicted. The Nanny State branch of the N.H.S…. or is it the social services, called the 'Community Mental Health Team' ( who really would be best dispensed with altogether!) act like a hysterical bunch of do badder do gooders by foisting their bizarre services often at the whim of a faceless bureaucrat in a housing association on the wrong people and leaving the really ill folk seriously alone. I think it was Harriet Harman ? who insisted everyone should come out of the hospitals, and what a great idea, but there is no provision made to ensure the affliction of their problems onto those around them does not occur. If they go to prison heaven help their neighbour or neighbours when they come out again! I don't want to sound cruel but I know instances where this has happened and the whole system in housing appears somewhat dysfunctional, to say the least. In Holland there is a separate housing policy which works well for everybody!!

Why is this idea important?

I think it is a great mistake to house people at random under one roof without consideration for the consequences as housing organisations do . People with grave mental problems or addictions can create big problems to their neighbours but housing organisations are less concerned about this than they should be and I'm not the first to say this! Why must somebody who is violent and very aggressive to his or her near neighbours, for example, be suffered and given more legal rights over so called normal people who might just want to live their lives in peace? It is very hard to evict them or to be protected from their behaviour, no matter what they do, for the law states that, because they have 'mental health problems' they have more rights than the other residents, which means rights to create absolute hell for other people and not be evicted. The Nanny State branch of the N.H.S…. or is it the social services, called the 'Community Mental Health Team' ( who really would be best dispensed with altogether!) act like a hysterical bunch of do badder do gooders by foisting their bizarre services often at the whim of a faceless bureaucrat in a housing association on the wrong people and leaving the really ill folk seriously alone. I think it was Harriet Harman ? who insisted everyone should come out of the hospitals, and what a great idea, but there is no provision made to ensure the affliction of their problems onto those around them does not occur. If they go to prison heaven help their neighbour or neighbours when they come out again! I don't want to sound cruel but I know instances where this has happened and the whole system in housing appears somewhat dysfunctional, to say the least. In Holland there is a separate housing policy which works well for everybody!!

Build footpaths in rural areas

Obesity in the UK is at an all time high, and we are constantly reminded by the government to walk more.

That's all very well unless you live in a rural area, where, more often and not, there are NO footpaths to walk on, forcing people to use a car for almost every journey.

Rural roads are highly dangerous for adults to walk along, and deathtraps for children. Simply slowing the speed of rural traffic down is not an answer to this problem, dedicated footpaths are needed.

The government could put some of the unemployed and unemployable to work building footpaths in rural areas to allow local people the choice of walking to work or to the shops.

Why is this idea important?

Obesity in the UK is at an all time high, and we are constantly reminded by the government to walk more.

That's all very well unless you live in a rural area, where, more often and not, there are NO footpaths to walk on, forcing people to use a car for almost every journey.

Rural roads are highly dangerous for adults to walk along, and deathtraps for children. Simply slowing the speed of rural traffic down is not an answer to this problem, dedicated footpaths are needed.

The government could put some of the unemployed and unemployable to work building footpaths in rural areas to allow local people the choice of walking to work or to the shops.

Health and safety

There are far too many health and safety regulations.  There is a very good enabling act, viz. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  Many of the regulations which have been made under that act are prescriptive and unnecessary.  These lead to unnecessary management suystems and paertrails over incredibly trivial issues.  It is my suggestion that most of the Regulations made under this act should be repealed because the enabling act itself provides a sufficient framework for a safe system of work to be set up where neceesary.  It is only under specific headings where there is a really serious risk, for example asbestos, where specific regulations are necessary in my view.

Why is this idea important?

There are far too many health and safety regulations.  There is a very good enabling act, viz. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  Many of the regulations which have been made under that act are prescriptive and unnecessary.  These lead to unnecessary management suystems and paertrails over incredibly trivial issues.  It is my suggestion that most of the Regulations made under this act should be repealed because the enabling act itself provides a sufficient framework for a safe system of work to be set up where neceesary.  It is only under specific headings where there is a really serious risk, for example asbestos, where specific regulations are necessary in my view.

Scrap the Care Quality Commission

As a so-called 'super regulator ' it is completely superfluous . An ego  trip for power hungry bureaucrats that will undoubtedly  expand way beyond the original remit, gobbling up scarce NHS resources for no benefit to patients.

Why is this idea important?

As a so-called 'super regulator ' it is completely superfluous . An ego  trip for power hungry bureaucrats that will undoubtedly  expand way beyond the original remit, gobbling up scarce NHS resources for no benefit to patients.

health and safety

I know the following implies the extension rather than the curtailment of legislation – but the extensions are to limit the impact and scope of existing legal frameworks which now seriously undermine civil society and the organisation of a variety of social and leisure activities.

Proposal:

Introduce laws that (a) allow individuals to affirm full responsiblity for their own and their children's safety, and effectively to opt-out of the health and safety umbrella which now makes so many activities prohibitively complicated or expensive to organise;  (b) radically curtail the possibility for litigation – laws which give public recognition to the reality that in life '**it happens'

Why is this idea important?

I know the following implies the extension rather than the curtailment of legislation – but the extensions are to limit the impact and scope of existing legal frameworks which now seriously undermine civil society and the organisation of a variety of social and leisure activities.

Proposal:

Introduce laws that (a) allow individuals to affirm full responsiblity for their own and their children's safety, and effectively to opt-out of the health and safety umbrella which now makes so many activities prohibitively complicated or expensive to organise;  (b) radically curtail the possibility for litigation – laws which give public recognition to the reality that in life '**it happens'

Abolish Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations in the UK

Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations have been outlawed in much of Europe and few have been performed in the UK since 1999.  There is no scientific basis for their continuation; they are barbaric and an embarrassment to the medical profession and have been rebranded as NSMD Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder.  The operation involves the destruction of healthy brain tissue to address such mental distress as depression, anxiety and more recently and of great concern, obsessive compulsive disorder.  I would like to see the operation outlawed in the Uk, giving greater preference to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, the only talking therapy with empirical research to prove its efficacy.  MIND, the Mental Health Charity, have been campaigning for some years for leucotomy/lobotomy operations to be outlawed. 

Why is this idea important?

Leucotomy/Lobotomy Operations have been outlawed in much of Europe and few have been performed in the UK since 1999.  There is no scientific basis for their continuation; they are barbaric and an embarrassment to the medical profession and have been rebranded as NSMD Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder.  The operation involves the destruction of healthy brain tissue to address such mental distress as depression, anxiety and more recently and of great concern, obsessive compulsive disorder.  I would like to see the operation outlawed in the Uk, giving greater preference to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, the only talking therapy with empirical research to prove its efficacy.  MIND, the Mental Health Charity, have been campaigning for some years for leucotomy/lobotomy operations to be outlawed. 

EU laws restricting info & access to harmless food & herb supplements

Stop allowing the EU directives effectively outlawing our access to information and use of safe natural products. Members of the public have never asked for this.

The majority of the nutrients, herbs and dosages which the EU Medicines and Food Directives are endeavouring to outlaw are totally safe. Some are also more effective at supporting health issues than the dangerous pharmaceuticals. However, the bottom line line is it should be an individuals right to choose.

Why is this idea important?

Stop allowing the EU directives effectively outlawing our access to information and use of safe natural products. Members of the public have never asked for this.

The majority of the nutrients, herbs and dosages which the EU Medicines and Food Directives are endeavouring to outlaw are totally safe. Some are also more effective at supporting health issues than the dangerous pharmaceuticals. However, the bottom line line is it should be an individuals right to choose.

Legalise Sale of Snus in the UK

Snus is a tobacco product available in Sweden, where it has a long tradion of use, but it is not legal to sell it in th UK. Snus is proven to be a healthier option than smoking.

Why is this idea important?

Snus is a tobacco product available in Sweden, where it has a long tradion of use, but it is not legal to sell it in th UK. Snus is proven to be a healthier option than smoking.

Drunk or Drugged in A&E

Vast amounts of NHS resources are spent on treating people who have injured themselves or others through alcohol or drug use especially in A&E.  Others who have been injured or are sick through no fault of their own have their waiting times increased. There is often the unplesantness and danger for staff and members of the public in the presence of intoxicated persons. Financial contribution towards treatment ahould be levied on those whose injuries or illness have obviously been caused by intoxication.

Why is this idea important?

Vast amounts of NHS resources are spent on treating people who have injured themselves or others through alcohol or drug use especially in A&E.  Others who have been injured or are sick through no fault of their own have their waiting times increased. There is often the unplesantness and danger for staff and members of the public in the presence of intoxicated persons. Financial contribution towards treatment ahould be levied on those whose injuries or illness have obviously been caused by intoxication.

No Ball Games

This is a major annoyance of mine. remove the signs that say no ball games from public areas such as parks and other grassy areas. The same people that whinged about almost getting hit by a football etc are the same people that moan about the "youth of today."

I have long been aware that kids these days have nothing to do of an evening. Certainly nothing that is cheap or free.

If you don't want kids standing on street corners drinking then give them access to other things. Blocking off all areas from free sports such as football is stupid. To those that cry "whewn I was young we went bowling or to the cinema" should actually find out how much it costs these days to go to either of these. 1 film that lasts 90minutes (evening matines no longer exist) costs about £5 on average, that's £35 pounds a week, not the old 2 shilling. Bowling is even more expensive, a 10-20minute game costs £5. The simple truth is that comparatively it is far more expensive than it ever was. Alcohol is the cheapest form of entertainment for youth as it stands and those that moan have no-one to blame but themselves.

If you traverse an area where kids are playing football and you get hit by a ball think yourself lucky its not a bottle or firework rather than claiming assault by feral youths. let the kids of today enjoy the very freedoms you enjoyed rather than being total hypocrites.

Why is this idea important?

This is a major annoyance of mine. remove the signs that say no ball games from public areas such as parks and other grassy areas. The same people that whinged about almost getting hit by a football etc are the same people that moan about the "youth of today."

I have long been aware that kids these days have nothing to do of an evening. Certainly nothing that is cheap or free.

If you don't want kids standing on street corners drinking then give them access to other things. Blocking off all areas from free sports such as football is stupid. To those that cry "whewn I was young we went bowling or to the cinema" should actually find out how much it costs these days to go to either of these. 1 film that lasts 90minutes (evening matines no longer exist) costs about £5 on average, that's £35 pounds a week, not the old 2 shilling. Bowling is even more expensive, a 10-20minute game costs £5. The simple truth is that comparatively it is far more expensive than it ever was. Alcohol is the cheapest form of entertainment for youth as it stands and those that moan have no-one to blame but themselves.

If you traverse an area where kids are playing football and you get hit by a ball think yourself lucky its not a bottle or firework rather than claiming assault by feral youths. let the kids of today enjoy the very freedoms you enjoyed rather than being total hypocrites.

The Government amend application processes for completing & registering Lasting Power of Attorney (both Property and Financial Affairs & Health and Welfare) AND that registering these should be free

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

Why is this idea important?

To radically overhaul and simplify the application process for completion of both types of Power of Attorney. Members of the public should be involved in each stage of the redesign so that forms are easy to understand, even where complex pieces of information are being given. To also look at additional ways that these can be completed, examples include allowing online completion of the documents with ‘pop up’ clear help boxes at each section. On-line operator support in completion to explain certain terms. The ability to save forms online and return to them several times. Where these forms repeatedly require the same information, once entered, the information should populate/complete all the relevant sections throughout the entire form.

The registering of the documents should also be free, not least because of the financial savings common use of these Power of Attorneys would bring to the NHS and Social Services in managing and supporting the care needs of people who become incapacitated.

Let people smoke, let business decide where they cant

The government collects tax on smoking and then bleats at us telling us its wrong. How did we get to the situation where we have to watch rubbish all the time on TV saying how ill it will make us etc. For the love of god everybody knows smoking is not a valid health plan, people smoke because its relaxing, enjoyable and yes it is cool. Let people smoke where they want, if businesses are losing money because of smokers they will ban it themselves. Let the market decide. Stop spending umpteen £Millions telling us what we already know and let people live the way they want to.

I write this while smoking a roll-up.  It is tasty.

Why is this idea important?

The government collects tax on smoking and then bleats at us telling us its wrong. How did we get to the situation where we have to watch rubbish all the time on TV saying how ill it will make us etc. For the love of god everybody knows smoking is not a valid health plan, people smoke because its relaxing, enjoyable and yes it is cool. Let people smoke where they want, if businesses are losing money because of smokers they will ban it themselves. Let the market decide. Stop spending umpteen £Millions telling us what we already know and let people live the way they want to.

I write this while smoking a roll-up.  It is tasty.

Age related restrictions on purchasing

To review and amend age related restrictions on purchasing items such as glue, paints etc which have been based on the assumption that someone of a particular age might misuse the item. For example someone buying oil paints for college will use them for graffiti.

Why is this idea important?

To review and amend age related restrictions on purchasing items such as glue, paints etc which have been based on the assumption that someone of a particular age might misuse the item. For example someone buying oil paints for college will use them for graffiti.

Government Imposed NHS Management

Why don't you stop imposing NHS management levels and spend more money on hospital equipment or mental health facilities (still a taboo and totally incompetent area of medicine)?  You impose management levels to manage medically trained people and yet they are quite able to manage themselves and their own departments.  Departments like Clinical Development and Clinical Governnance – what the hell is that all about?  People spending 12 hours a day in back-to-back meetings, and supervising already trained medical people means they haven't really got a job to do.  Why don't you spend more money in encouraging the lower ranks to be more respected, in admin and clerical, and also to give artists and drama students a chance in getting a job as they are much better business trained and have much more intelligence in making decisions and in being creative and stressless in the workplace than the corporate dead heads that are currently the norm in the workplace, and which make the British workplace the most stressful in the world.

Why is this idea important?

Why don't you stop imposing NHS management levels and spend more money on hospital equipment or mental health facilities (still a taboo and totally incompetent area of medicine)?  You impose management levels to manage medically trained people and yet they are quite able to manage themselves and their own departments.  Departments like Clinical Development and Clinical Governnance – what the hell is that all about?  People spending 12 hours a day in back-to-back meetings, and supervising already trained medical people means they haven't really got a job to do.  Why don't you spend more money in encouraging the lower ranks to be more respected, in admin and clerical, and also to give artists and drama students a chance in getting a job as they are much better business trained and have much more intelligence in making decisions and in being creative and stressless in the workplace than the corporate dead heads that are currently the norm in the workplace, and which make the British workplace the most stressful in the world.

Remove reversing alarms from vehicles

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Why is this idea important?

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Stop NHS ‘Tourists

Thousands of 'tourists' visit the UK each year merely to exploit our free healthcare.

When I go overseas I take out health insurance and expect to pay for any treatment I may require.

Charge non-UK residents for their medical requirements and perhaps the NHS won't have to make such drastic cuts – and perhaps it will then become easier for UK taxpayers to get the teatment they require – and pay for.

Why is this idea important?

Thousands of 'tourists' visit the UK each year merely to exploit our free healthcare.

When I go overseas I take out health insurance and expect to pay for any treatment I may require.

Charge non-UK residents for their medical requirements and perhaps the NHS won't have to make such drastic cuts – and perhaps it will then become easier for UK taxpayers to get the teatment they require – and pay for.

Sale of alcohol – reduce outlets, raise age to purchase

We unfortunately have a deplorable 'drink culture' in the Britain that many other nations share but to a far lesser extent.  We need to return to responsible drinking in society, as was more the norm in the 50's, 60's.

I suggest the following as steps to correct the balance

1. – raise the legal drinking age to 21 in public houses and other public places.

This would provide for a (hopefully) more mature and socially responsible age for legally being allowed to purchase and to consume alcoholic drink in normal places it is dispensed and in all public places. Supermarkets and pubs already operate the 'ask if 21' so this should not be a major problem with outlets.

2. – segregate alcohol sales from other sale products

Supermarkets sell alcohol alongside fish fingers. There is an ease in the purchase as a normal part of grocery shopping. There should be a return to separate alcohol stores (off-licences for want of a better term). These could still be operated by the major retail chains as well as the smaller independent traders, but should be from separate and segregated stores from the main super / hyper markets. A separate entry point from the road side pavement into the store would reduce the 'casual'purchase and the sneak attempt to buy by under-age purchasers.

3. – Stop all alcohol sales from petrol filling stations / service stations    

Stores linked to the sale of vehicle fuels (petrol stations) should be prevented from selling alcohol in any form. There is no desire to link the sale of intoxicating drink with the use and operation of vehicles. This would be a minor inconvenience to traders and to those wishing to buy alcohol, but one that sends the correct message.

4. – ban the drinking of alcohol in any public place unless authorised

Parks, play-grounds, bus shelters, bmx and skate parks, streets (other than forecourts to appropriately licensed premises), arenas, etc. should be no alcohol areas, unless there is a licence issued for alcohol consumption which the local could (previously the courts) would adjudicate over).

Please consider this suggestion and support if you can.

Why is this idea important?

We unfortunately have a deplorable 'drink culture' in the Britain that many other nations share but to a far lesser extent.  We need to return to responsible drinking in society, as was more the norm in the 50's, 60's.

I suggest the following as steps to correct the balance

1. – raise the legal drinking age to 21 in public houses and other public places.

This would provide for a (hopefully) more mature and socially responsible age for legally being allowed to purchase and to consume alcoholic drink in normal places it is dispensed and in all public places. Supermarkets and pubs already operate the 'ask if 21' so this should not be a major problem with outlets.

2. – segregate alcohol sales from other sale products

Supermarkets sell alcohol alongside fish fingers. There is an ease in the purchase as a normal part of grocery shopping. There should be a return to separate alcohol stores (off-licences for want of a better term). These could still be operated by the major retail chains as well as the smaller independent traders, but should be from separate and segregated stores from the main super / hyper markets. A separate entry point from the road side pavement into the store would reduce the 'casual'purchase and the sneak attempt to buy by under-age purchasers.

3. – Stop all alcohol sales from petrol filling stations / service stations    

Stores linked to the sale of vehicle fuels (petrol stations) should be prevented from selling alcohol in any form. There is no desire to link the sale of intoxicating drink with the use and operation of vehicles. This would be a minor inconvenience to traders and to those wishing to buy alcohol, but one that sends the correct message.

4. – ban the drinking of alcohol in any public place unless authorised

Parks, play-grounds, bus shelters, bmx and skate parks, streets (other than forecourts to appropriately licensed premises), arenas, etc. should be no alcohol areas, unless there is a licence issued for alcohol consumption which the local could (previously the courts) would adjudicate over).

Please consider this suggestion and support if you can.

Smoking ban

To revise the smoking ban.  No government should have the right to dictate to the owners of buildings who they can and cannot allow into their premises.  The decision on whether smoking is allowed or not should be the choice of the owner of the premises.  Where they chose to allow smoking it should be in a designated area, clearly identifed and warning people that 'smoking is allowed' is that area.

There used to be a 'smoke room' in pubs this should be reinstated.  Just a designated room, no bar therefore no threat to staff.

Airports should have a designated smoking room.  It could even reduce air rage.  Most other countries allow smoking in some part of the airport,  and it has to be better than expecting people to stand outside.

Even the definition upon which the smoking ban was introduced is wrong.  The correct definition of a public place is an area where people are not excluded based upon their ethnicity or socio economic grounds.  This means that if you have to pay to go in it is not a public place.

I personnally think that a government simply does not have the right to apply such extreme blanket rules to buildings, places and areas which they do not own or control.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

To revise the smoking ban.  No government should have the right to dictate to the owners of buildings who they can and cannot allow into their premises.  The decision on whether smoking is allowed or not should be the choice of the owner of the premises.  Where they chose to allow smoking it should be in a designated area, clearly identifed and warning people that 'smoking is allowed' is that area.

There used to be a 'smoke room' in pubs this should be reinstated.  Just a designated room, no bar therefore no threat to staff.

Airports should have a designated smoking room.  It could even reduce air rage.  Most other countries allow smoking in some part of the airport,  and it has to be better than expecting people to stand outside.

Even the definition upon which the smoking ban was introduced is wrong.  The correct definition of a public place is an area where people are not excluded based upon their ethnicity or socio economic grounds.  This means that if you have to pay to go in it is not a public place.

I personnally think that a government simply does not have the right to apply such extreme blanket rules to buildings, places and areas which they do not own or control.