Repeal the laws that allowe Members of Parliament to abstain from obeying certain selected British laws

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Why is this idea important?

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Abolish the 30 Year Rule

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Why is this idea important?

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Honesty from businesses in financial difficulties

Many people have probably worked for the type of small to medium sized family business which goes through financial difficulties in the full knowledge that they won't survive.

These sorts of businesses seem to fly under the radar of regulations while others have masses and masses of regulations to adhere to.  For example, it is difficult enforcing a tribunal decision for non payment of wages with these types of businesses, as after the business has folded and the directors have employed clever accountants to ensure their own family is secure a tribunal decision can be unenforceable.

Businesses should have a duty to inform their employees if they know full well that they are going to have to close down as soon as they have such knowledge, before they start siphoning off money to ensure the security of themselves.

The relevant legislation needs to be looked at in this area to ensure employees of such small to medium sized family run businesses are protected just as much as employees of the larger companies.

Why is this idea important?

Many people have probably worked for the type of small to medium sized family business which goes through financial difficulties in the full knowledge that they won't survive.

These sorts of businesses seem to fly under the radar of regulations while others have masses and masses of regulations to adhere to.  For example, it is difficult enforcing a tribunal decision for non payment of wages with these types of businesses, as after the business has folded and the directors have employed clever accountants to ensure their own family is secure a tribunal decision can be unenforceable.

Businesses should have a duty to inform their employees if they know full well that they are going to have to close down as soon as they have such knowledge, before they start siphoning off money to ensure the security of themselves.

The relevant legislation needs to be looked at in this area to ensure employees of such small to medium sized family run businesses are protected just as much as employees of the larger companies.

Abolish the Official Secrets Act

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.

Why is this idea important?

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.