Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Replace GP’s by Highly Trained Nurses

Replace GP's by highly trained nurses. Using current GP salaries, the nation could benefit from at least twice the number of highly trained nurses who can perform the job of a GP. This will ensure a much improved service at local health centres. The nurses could also be on call.

Why is this idea important?

Replace GP's by highly trained nurses. Using current GP salaries, the nation could benefit from at least twice the number of highly trained nurses who can perform the job of a GP. This will ensure a much improved service at local health centres. The nurses could also be on call.

why is the health service exempt from cuts

what is so special about he health service that they have to be spared the cuts. If the government spread the pain fairly then we wouldn't be in the position where we have to make drastic cuts to some departments and none to others.

Why is this idea important?

what is so special about he health service that they have to be spared the cuts. If the government spread the pain fairly then we wouldn't be in the position where we have to make drastic cuts to some departments and none to others.

Repeal the smoking ban IN ITS CURRENT FORM

Smokers are now the most persecuted minority in the country.  Most smokers just want a degree of tolerance for them to pursue their vice without causing offence to other people.  The trouble is that the anti smoking stasi expect their rights to trounce all others, regardless of how minor the offence to them is. The result is that smokers have no rights.  They are unable to have an enjoyable drink in a pub or hotel, having to slink out like criminals in the cold and wet; they are generally denied a room in a hotel, where they can enjoy a cigarette, without having to burgle their way out at night.  In short, their right to enjoyment is denied them, so that all others can be spared so much as a whiff.   For this they are the most highly taxed group of people in the country – the government doesn't deem it so bad that it bans the habit.  Heaven forbid that all those taxes be lost.  What happened to no taxation without representation?  Smokers know what they are doing to their health.  They don't need Nanny to tell them.  They are probably going to DIE younger, thus saving the nation a fortune;  less cost in pensions, less chance of living long enough to get dementia; less chance of  requiring care (in a home where they will be sent outside to smoke)  The NHS is quids in – for Heaven's sake we PAY for it.

I have always been a considerate smoker.  Why, oh why can't smokers be given a little consideration?  Why can't there be smoking areas?  Even if you accept that secondary smoke can cause illnesses, this is much more likely to be where the smoker lives with or is in constant contact with others.  The occasionally puff isn't going to kill anyone,  unlike drunkards, who can cause immeasurable harm to others, so why do we have 24 hour drinking – Smokers don't binge smoke or kill people when they've been on a tobacco bender.

How about banning all manner of other behaviour that people find unpleasant and which are equally damaging to health.  Make it a punishable offence to sneeze or cough without a hanky, a hefty fine for not washing hands after using public conveniences; smelling of BO or perfume in a crowded place.   The list could be endless. 

Why is this idea important?

Smokers are now the most persecuted minority in the country.  Most smokers just want a degree of tolerance for them to pursue their vice without causing offence to other people.  The trouble is that the anti smoking stasi expect their rights to trounce all others, regardless of how minor the offence to them is. The result is that smokers have no rights.  They are unable to have an enjoyable drink in a pub or hotel, having to slink out like criminals in the cold and wet; they are generally denied a room in a hotel, where they can enjoy a cigarette, without having to burgle their way out at night.  In short, their right to enjoyment is denied them, so that all others can be spared so much as a whiff.   For this they are the most highly taxed group of people in the country – the government doesn't deem it so bad that it bans the habit.  Heaven forbid that all those taxes be lost.  What happened to no taxation without representation?  Smokers know what they are doing to their health.  They don't need Nanny to tell them.  They are probably going to DIE younger, thus saving the nation a fortune;  less cost in pensions, less chance of living long enough to get dementia; less chance of  requiring care (in a home where they will be sent outside to smoke)  The NHS is quids in – for Heaven's sake we PAY for it.

I have always been a considerate smoker.  Why, oh why can't smokers be given a little consideration?  Why can't there be smoking areas?  Even if you accept that secondary smoke can cause illnesses, this is much more likely to be where the smoker lives with or is in constant contact with others.  The occasionally puff isn't going to kill anyone,  unlike drunkards, who can cause immeasurable harm to others, so why do we have 24 hour drinking – Smokers don't binge smoke or kill people when they've been on a tobacco bender.

How about banning all manner of other behaviour that people find unpleasant and which are equally damaging to health.  Make it a punishable offence to sneeze or cough without a hanky, a hefty fine for not washing hands after using public conveniences; smelling of BO or perfume in a crowded place.   The list could be endless. 

psychological evaluations for educational (medico-legal and legal) purposes

There is an unacknowledged and therefore unidentified and untreated core body-mind condition called converted or latent handedness: better expressed as a mis-match between the writing and the adept hand. It has potentially all pervasive and generally negative effects on individuals, families and ultimately society as a whole.

In an educational context, currently SEN legislation states that any SEN Statement requires an educational psychologist's assessment. But educational psychologists are not trained to identify nor treat the condition. If like me, a former member of the British Psychological Society they were to so identify the condition, they will, like me be struck off the BPS Chartered Register. So either the relevant SEN legislation needs to be repealed or it must be a condition of BPS Chartered Status that all professional psychologists be appropriately trained.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There is an unacknowledged and therefore unidentified and untreated core body-mind condition called converted or latent handedness: better expressed as a mis-match between the writing and the adept hand. It has potentially all pervasive and generally negative effects on individuals, families and ultimately society as a whole.

In an educational context, currently SEN legislation states that any SEN Statement requires an educational psychologist's assessment. But educational psychologists are not trained to identify nor treat the condition. If like me, a former member of the British Psychological Society they were to so identify the condition, they will, like me be struck off the BPS Chartered Register. So either the relevant SEN legislation needs to be repealed or it must be a condition of BPS Chartered Status that all professional psychologists be appropriately trained.

 

 

Reduce the Testing Requirements for new Drugs

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.

Why is this idea important?

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.

Endgovernment interference with doctor-patient relationships.

The Labour government quietly introduced statin targets for the population over fifty. This resulted in doctors being pressurised into prescribing statins, not because the patients needed them but because they were under financial pressure to do so. A not very well informed relative of mine was told by a doctor that he had to take statins, even though they made him feel ill, as "it is the law that you have to."  A downright lie, but it was made by a doctor under financial pressure from the government.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour government quietly introduced statin targets for the population over fifty. This resulted in doctors being pressurised into prescribing statins, not because the patients needed them but because they were under financial pressure to do so. A not very well informed relative of mine was told by a doctor that he had to take statins, even though they made him feel ill, as "it is the law that you have to."  A downright lie, but it was made by a doctor under financial pressure from the government.

the law should lession to the children

the law should lession to children more regardles of they age

when a child of 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and say someone has been abusing them dont you as a parent whant to do the right thing and get police childrens service involed to stop this abuse from happine again but now one will lession becouse they say the child is to young or cant rember one little thing like what colour sock was he wearing

Why is this idea important?

the law should lession to children more regardles of they age

when a child of 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and say someone has been abusing them dont you as a parent whant to do the right thing and get police childrens service involed to stop this abuse from happine again but now one will lession becouse they say the child is to young or cant rember one little thing like what colour sock was he wearing

reduce salaries of hospital consultants and GPs

some of these practitioners are wonderful but many are not. the latter group benefit from the umbrella heading of the former. like any sector of society, there are members that abuse their positon, they work minimally, often not turning up for appointments, rounds, etc. they do not support their colleagues.

these people are clever people, they have got the training place that 5 – 10 people competed for – they are doing this because they want to – there are not places for medicine in clearing at university. they have many opportunities to make good money outside of their job – private work, lectures, drug trials etc etc

much of their work is done by their subordinates – they come in when a situation is really serious and if the outcome is positive – they are the heroes and if it is negative – its not their fault.

for the ones that do a good job, then they should be rewarded – but why so much more than for someone else doing a good job – to the best of their ability? for the ones that don't – they should be weeded out and struck off – there are plenty of others queuing up to do better.

Why is this idea important?

some of these practitioners are wonderful but many are not. the latter group benefit from the umbrella heading of the former. like any sector of society, there are members that abuse their positon, they work minimally, often not turning up for appointments, rounds, etc. they do not support their colleagues.

these people are clever people, they have got the training place that 5 – 10 people competed for – they are doing this because they want to – there are not places for medicine in clearing at university. they have many opportunities to make good money outside of their job – private work, lectures, drug trials etc etc

much of their work is done by their subordinates – they come in when a situation is really serious and if the outcome is positive – they are the heroes and if it is negative – its not their fault.

for the ones that do a good job, then they should be rewarded – but why so much more than for someone else doing a good job – to the best of their ability? for the ones that don't – they should be weeded out and struck off – there are plenty of others queuing up to do better.

No Alcoholic Drinks / Petrol at Supermarkets

Stop the selling of all alcoholic drinks in all Supermarkets. This would then increase the sales in pubs and off licenses. The breweries sell the same drinks to supermarkets at lower prices than they sell them for to the pubs. Too many pubs are closing down on a daily basis because they cannot compete.

Also the same for petrol garages The Supermarkets offer '5p' off per litre when they have purchased £50.00 worth of goods inside the store. Local petrol stations cannot compete with these prices and many are closing down.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the selling of all alcoholic drinks in all Supermarkets. This would then increase the sales in pubs and off licenses. The breweries sell the same drinks to supermarkets at lower prices than they sell them for to the pubs. Too many pubs are closing down on a daily basis because they cannot compete.

Also the same for petrol garages The Supermarkets offer '5p' off per litre when they have purchased £50.00 worth of goods inside the store. Local petrol stations cannot compete with these prices and many are closing down.

Remove the annoying restriction when buying over the counter tablets eg paracetamol, ibuprofen etc

Please look at removing this very annoying restriction (law) that says you can only buy two packets at a time.   But you can go to as many shops as you like, one after the other, and keep buying two packets.  How very stupid is this?

Why does this restriction exist and what is the thinking behind it?

Why is this idea important?

Please look at removing this very annoying restriction (law) that says you can only buy two packets at a time.   But you can go to as many shops as you like, one after the other, and keep buying two packets.  How very stupid is this?

Why does this restriction exist and what is the thinking behind it?

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Licensed smoking pubs

Public houses could be allowed to apply for a smoking licence – for a fee. The licence to be granted subject to the provision of a separate, enclosed smoking area serviced by air conditioners/washers. Standards for the performance of the air con/washers would be set (in a similiar fashion to car emissions ratings) and any failure to meet the required level would result in a hefty fine and possible loss of licence.

Staff for the area are either to be smokers or non-smokers, who are not bothered by smoking.  These staff would be required to sign a voluntary statement to the effect that they are prepared to work in the licenced areas, so long as the air purity meets requiements.

No smoking to be allowed in 'no smoking' areas and dining areas.

Why is this idea important?

Public houses could be allowed to apply for a smoking licence – for a fee. The licence to be granted subject to the provision of a separate, enclosed smoking area serviced by air conditioners/washers. Standards for the performance of the air con/washers would be set (in a similiar fashion to car emissions ratings) and any failure to meet the required level would result in a hefty fine and possible loss of licence.

Staff for the area are either to be smokers or non-smokers, who are not bothered by smoking.  These staff would be required to sign a voluntary statement to the effect that they are prepared to work in the licenced areas, so long as the air purity meets requiements.

No smoking to be allowed in 'no smoking' areas and dining areas.

Private sector doctors should not be able to overrule your own GP

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Private sector doctors should not be able to overrule your own GP

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Repeal the blanket ban on smoking in public spaces

What I wanted to do was say thanks to the people who commented on my idea; whether or not they agreed.

Since I'm new to the site I may not have discovered how to reply to comments and enlarge on a previous contribution. I notice the moderator has requested we add comments to previous strands; this is unsatisfactory because then I can't reply to you personally, also, I think our contributions will be lost if the government ever decides to act on any of this.

I thought Matt was being unreasonable. It is possible to segregate areas in public spaces and minimise cross contamination; industry does this all the time when dealing with processes involving fumes and dusts. It only depends on how tolerant Matt is willing to be; if he requires that no single atom of my smoke will reach him, then that effectively negates my freedom, because no pub will be able to install that sort of local exhaust ventilation.

Controlling smoking similarly to the controls on Cannabis will be about as effective as those controls are; in other words, not at all. Prohibition rarely works.

A point I didn't make in my original contribution was that smoking in a public place is not simply a misdemeanour, it is a crime. So the smoking ban potentially criminalised millions of otherwise law abiding people overnight. This can't be right…

What minority will impose their will next? Ban eating meat? (extreme vegetarians) Ban alcohol? (extreme Islamists and Christians). You can see it coming can't you? Need I go on?

Why is this idea important?

What I wanted to do was say thanks to the people who commented on my idea; whether or not they agreed.

Since I'm new to the site I may not have discovered how to reply to comments and enlarge on a previous contribution. I notice the moderator has requested we add comments to previous strands; this is unsatisfactory because then I can't reply to you personally, also, I think our contributions will be lost if the government ever decides to act on any of this.

I thought Matt was being unreasonable. It is possible to segregate areas in public spaces and minimise cross contamination; industry does this all the time when dealing with processes involving fumes and dusts. It only depends on how tolerant Matt is willing to be; if he requires that no single atom of my smoke will reach him, then that effectively negates my freedom, because no pub will be able to install that sort of local exhaust ventilation.

Controlling smoking similarly to the controls on Cannabis will be about as effective as those controls are; in other words, not at all. Prohibition rarely works.

A point I didn't make in my original contribution was that smoking in a public place is not simply a misdemeanour, it is a crime. So the smoking ban potentially criminalised millions of otherwise law abiding people overnight. This can't be right…

What minority will impose their will next? Ban eating meat? (extreme vegetarians) Ban alcohol? (extreme Islamists and Christians). You can see it coming can't you? Need I go on?

employers rights to your medical information

My employer "offers" free medical checks and advice.  The catch is that you can not refuse.  As part of this "benefit" you are required to provide your GPs address and contact number and a consent form has to be signed for the employer to request a copy of your records through a third party ( a medical company they pay). 

I have nothing to hide but I do not think that employers should have the right to access and then retain your medical details for what ever use.  I believe that you should be able to opt out of this "benefit" and continue to have your job with no recriminations.  I also believe that people if offered health screening should be able to choose their own health screener and choose which information to share with third parties.

Why is this idea important?

My employer "offers" free medical checks and advice.  The catch is that you can not refuse.  As part of this "benefit" you are required to provide your GPs address and contact number and a consent form has to be signed for the employer to request a copy of your records through a third party ( a medical company they pay). 

I have nothing to hide but I do not think that employers should have the right to access and then retain your medical details for what ever use.  I believe that you should be able to opt out of this "benefit" and continue to have your job with no recriminations.  I also believe that people if offered health screening should be able to choose their own health screener and choose which information to share with third parties.

Sick of non-smokers moaning

All smokers are asking for is in public places a room away from "non-smokers" which will bring back their right to smoke if they wish.

This will not effect the non-smoker it will stop them going on about-passive smoking, smoke blowing in their faces when walking past doorways, their clothes smelling of smoke,

This tells me that we are in need smoking rooms away from the non-smokers this should please everyone.   Or Will it

Why is this idea important?

All smokers are asking for is in public places a room away from "non-smokers" which will bring back their right to smoke if they wish.

This will not effect the non-smoker it will stop them going on about-passive smoking, smoke blowing in their faces when walking past doorways, their clothes smelling of smoke,

This tells me that we are in need smoking rooms away from the non-smokers this should please everyone.   Or Will it

Remove all ‘internal market’ constraints from public sector

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Why is this idea important?

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Remove the tie-up between Dentists and Hygienists

Dental Hygienist Rules

Did you know you are not allowed to make a walk-in appointment with a dental hygienist? You have to see the Dentist first and be referred.

This is a very expensive process and counter productive.

Why shouldn’t I be able to see the Hygienist and have my teeth professionally cleaned as often as I want. It should be no different than going to the barbers for a professional shave.

By allowing people to see ANY hygienist any time they want, the general health of the nation’s teeth should actually improve, not only due to the treatment they provide, but the advice they give.

The cosy tie-in between Dentist and Hygienist will be broken. It must be quite hard for hygienists to get their business underway if they are totally dependant on the patronage of a dentist. Why can’t they be as common as a manicurist?

Obviously the hygienist must be safeguarded and have the right to refuse to treat anyone who’s teeth look so troublesome that the client MUST be asked to visit a dentist.

Why is this idea important?

Dental Hygienist Rules

Did you know you are not allowed to make a walk-in appointment with a dental hygienist? You have to see the Dentist first and be referred.

This is a very expensive process and counter productive.

Why shouldn’t I be able to see the Hygienist and have my teeth professionally cleaned as often as I want. It should be no different than going to the barbers for a professional shave.

By allowing people to see ANY hygienist any time they want, the general health of the nation’s teeth should actually improve, not only due to the treatment they provide, but the advice they give.

The cosy tie-in between Dentist and Hygienist will be broken. It must be quite hard for hygienists to get their business underway if they are totally dependant on the patronage of a dentist. Why can’t they be as common as a manicurist?

Obviously the hygienist must be safeguarded and have the right to refuse to treat anyone who’s teeth look so troublesome that the client MUST be asked to visit a dentist.