Translation services

I agree that a huge amount of money could be saved by abolishing translation services. However I think that they should be available for anyone who has been in the UK for less than 6 months. Forms should in future be in English only. If anyone needs a translation then they should make their own arrangements unless they have only recently arrived here.

Why is this idea important?

I agree that a huge amount of money could be saved by abolishing translation services. However I think that they should be available for anyone who has been in the UK for less than 6 months. Forms should in future be in English only. If anyone needs a translation then they should make their own arrangements unless they have only recently arrived here.

One law for all, stop making exceptions.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Why is this idea important?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Make english people first in our country

why do i struggle so much when i am a english born and bread i dont understand that we are the only country who dont put our people first i just want my country to make it feel like my country and be fair in everyday rights i just want to know why we aint put first ?

Why is this idea important?

why do i struggle so much when i am a english born and bread i dont understand that we are the only country who dont put our people first i just want my country to make it feel like my country and be fair in everyday rights i just want to know why we aint put first ?

Benefits for immigrants

No immigrant , whether from the EU or not , should be able to claimBenefits including Legal Aid , untilhe or she has been resident in  Great britain for at least two years. No benefits should ever be paid for family members not resident in Great Britain.

Why is this idea important?

No immigrant , whether from the EU or not , should be able to claimBenefits including Legal Aid , untilhe or she has been resident in  Great britain for at least two years. No benefits should ever be paid for family members not resident in Great Britain.

UK citizens’ right to find a job: punishments for dodgy Agencies who recruit abroad first

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

A referendum over elements of offensive ethnic cultures

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Why is this idea important?

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Too many rights

The growth in rights culture has mainly benefitted those who want to abuse those rights, hence the growth of benefit culture,  The large numbers of illegal immigrants allowed to stay in the UK and use all the services paid for by the taxpayer. 

Why is this idea important?

The growth in rights culture has mainly benefitted those who want to abuse those rights, hence the growth of benefit culture,  The large numbers of illegal immigrants allowed to stay in the UK and use all the services paid for by the taxpayer. 

United Kingdom

United Kingdom should be as Australia has been with regards to other peoples wanting

access to stay in our country,

WE ARE NOT BEING RACIST   WE ARE NOW THE MINORITY

If they have their communities, and if they are in their own churches, mosks or community centres etc, they can dress and do whatever they like.

But not out in the public  OBEY our rules not yours

We would not be alowed to bring our societies or our way of life to most countries outside europe, so why should we continually be called RACIST, but the shoe is on the other foot as we are now the MINORITY and they are racist towards us

Human rights has went completely overboard

Why is this idea important?

United Kingdom should be as Australia has been with regards to other peoples wanting

access to stay in our country,

WE ARE NOT BEING RACIST   WE ARE NOW THE MINORITY

If they have their communities, and if they are in their own churches, mosks or community centres etc, they can dress and do whatever they like.

But not out in the public  OBEY our rules not yours

We would not be alowed to bring our societies or our way of life to most countries outside europe, so why should we continually be called RACIST, but the shoe is on the other foot as we are now the MINORITY and they are racist towards us

Human rights has went completely overboard

Scrap Boimetric Residence Visas

If yiou think the ID card is dead, think again. A form of the National Identity Register and the ID card will remain, to be enforced on foreign nationals living in the UK and known as the Biometric Residency Visa.

Why is this idea important?

If yiou think the ID card is dead, think again. A form of the National Identity Register and the ID card will remain, to be enforced on foreign nationals living in the UK and known as the Biometric Residency Visa.

Full emancipation of Roman Catholics

There are a wide range of historical leftovers in our society and laws at every level relating back to penal times against Roman Catholics. While most are dormant they irritate. They range from arcane rules against heraldry for Catholic bishops to who the sovereign can marry. I think also much nonsense is generated on the subject so I would like to see a thorough review exercise of just what still lies on the statute books.

Why is this idea important?

There are a wide range of historical leftovers in our society and laws at every level relating back to penal times against Roman Catholics. While most are dormant they irritate. They range from arcane rules against heraldry for Catholic bishops to who the sovereign can marry. I think also much nonsense is generated on the subject so I would like to see a thorough review exercise of just what still lies on the statute books.

Stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

I suggest the Government immediately stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

If a person comes to the UK from another country and they claim they have e.g. 10 children who still live in his home country then the Government pays out tax credits for each of the 10 children. Even though they are not and have never been in this country. They may not even exist, how can we check?? 

we cannot afford to pay for children who are in this country so we should not be paying for children who do not live here. They are not our responsibility.

This is not xenophobia but simple basic economics.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest the Government immediately stop paying child tax credits for children who do not live in this country.

If a person comes to the UK from another country and they claim they have e.g. 10 children who still live in his home country then the Government pays out tax credits for each of the 10 children. Even though they are not and have never been in this country. They may not even exist, how can we check?? 

we cannot afford to pay for children who are in this country so we should not be paying for children who do not live here. They are not our responsibility.

This is not xenophobia but simple basic economics.

Amnesty for illegal Immigrants

Illegal immigrants should be allowed to legalise by being given a conditional amnesty.  The conditions being:

  • They must have resided in the UK for 10 years or more
  • Have no criminal record
  • Be made to do charitable work or community service to 6 months
  • Be made to pay a fee which will cover the costs of the amnesty so that it does not burden the taxpayer.
  • Not be allowed access to public funds for 5 years.  e.g. NHS, benefits etc.  (This period of time will allow for the illegal immigrants to contribute to the system that they have and will in future have access to)
  • Be made to register for income tax contributions
  • Pass the 'Life in UK' test

Why is this idea important?

Illegal immigrants should be allowed to legalise by being given a conditional amnesty.  The conditions being:

  • They must have resided in the UK for 10 years or more
  • Have no criminal record
  • Be made to do charitable work or community service to 6 months
  • Be made to pay a fee which will cover the costs of the amnesty so that it does not burden the taxpayer.
  • Not be allowed access to public funds for 5 years.  e.g. NHS, benefits etc.  (This period of time will allow for the illegal immigrants to contribute to the system that they have and will in future have access to)
  • Be made to register for income tax contributions
  • Pass the 'Life in UK' test

Access To UK Citizenship

In the early 60's and late 70's people that come over to the UK to work and study do so with the intention of returning back to their homeland to add value. Gradually, the immigration rules was such that people now intentionally come to the UK to study or work and prolong that visa entry to become British Citizen. I believe this is wrong.

The current immigration rule in the UK is unfair to other countries around the world wanting to retain its talent and also unfair to genuine citizenship working hard to make ends meet.

I propose a change in law that states likely that people coming to the UK:

– To work or

– To Study

Do not have access to claim citizenship. In otherwords, the pathway to citizenship I strongly believe should be only by marriage to a British Citizenship or child of a British Citizen. I will also consider PSB Inventors/investors on the discretion of the Secretary of State after 10 years of continuous investment in the UK

Why is this idea important?

In the early 60's and late 70's people that come over to the UK to work and study do so with the intention of returning back to their homeland to add value. Gradually, the immigration rules was such that people now intentionally come to the UK to study or work and prolong that visa entry to become British Citizen. I believe this is wrong.

The current immigration rule in the UK is unfair to other countries around the world wanting to retain its talent and also unfair to genuine citizenship working hard to make ends meet.

I propose a change in law that states likely that people coming to the UK:

– To work or

– To Study

Do not have access to claim citizenship. In otherwords, the pathway to citizenship I strongly believe should be only by marriage to a British Citizenship or child of a British Citizen. I will also consider PSB Inventors/investors on the discretion of the Secretary of State after 10 years of continuous investment in the UK

Streamline the Tax and Benefits system.

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Why is this idea important?

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Stop racism against the ethnic English

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Why is this idea important?

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Lift off the ‘restriction to work as a doctor in training’ from Tier 1 general visa

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

Why is this idea important?

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

Abolish the law of universal juridiction

Currently we have a ridiculous situation whereby the law allows anyone to obtain an arrest warrant, from a local magistrate, against a visiting foreign politician or dignitary for an alleged war crime committed anywhere in the world. While this in itself is not illogical, the system has been and is clearly being abused by those with a political agenda against certain groups. It subverts the capacity of the British government to conduct foreign policy by placing all foreigners at the mercy of political activists.

While it is important to prosecute war crimes wherever they occur, such a decision is significant enough that it should only be made by the Attorney General, and not on the whim of a local magistrate court.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we have a ridiculous situation whereby the law allows anyone to obtain an arrest warrant, from a local magistrate, against a visiting foreign politician or dignitary for an alleged war crime committed anywhere in the world. While this in itself is not illogical, the system has been and is clearly being abused by those with a political agenda against certain groups. It subverts the capacity of the British government to conduct foreign policy by placing all foreigners at the mercy of political activists.

While it is important to prosecute war crimes wherever they occur, such a decision is significant enough that it should only be made by the Attorney General, and not on the whim of a local magistrate court.

Amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

Although there are many strong arguments in favour of shielding the adherents of a religious ideology from hatred, these arguments should not extend to the protection of ideas that constitute that religious ideology. To do so would be to the detriment of our democratic way of life, and would disproportionally inhibit those of us (myself included) who wish to tackle the unwarranted hatred espoused by certain religious ideologies, whether that be towards the gay community, women or other sub-groups in our society. There are many religious texts in Britain today whose verses are at best ambiguious, or at worst inciteful so as to provide a justification for one section of society to oppress another, or to commit horrendous acts of terrorism. This ambiguity, and the empirical evidence that corroborates these assertions in the form of 9/11 or IRA terrorism, could lead quite justifiably to an athiest such as myself, to conclude that they "hate" a religious ideology, or even all religious ideologies if hateful sentiments can be inferred from them across the board. Currently however, only expressions of "antipathy" are allowed against religious texts, not "hatred". While I do not personally advocate "hatred" against a religious ideology, I can see why an individual might feel that way inclined, and therefore do not believe they should be arrested for this. Accordingly, I believe a supplementary protection for freedom of speech should be added to section 29J of the Act, as highlighted in bold:

"29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of hatred, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
 

Why is this idea important?

Although there are many strong arguments in favour of shielding the adherents of a religious ideology from hatred, these arguments should not extend to the protection of ideas that constitute that religious ideology. To do so would be to the detriment of our democratic way of life, and would disproportionally inhibit those of us (myself included) who wish to tackle the unwarranted hatred espoused by certain religious ideologies, whether that be towards the gay community, women or other sub-groups in our society. There are many religious texts in Britain today whose verses are at best ambiguious, or at worst inciteful so as to provide a justification for one section of society to oppress another, or to commit horrendous acts of terrorism. This ambiguity, and the empirical evidence that corroborates these assertions in the form of 9/11 or IRA terrorism, could lead quite justifiably to an athiest such as myself, to conclude that they "hate" a religious ideology, or even all religious ideologies if hateful sentiments can be inferred from them across the board. Currently however, only expressions of "antipathy" are allowed against religious texts, not "hatred". While I do not personally advocate "hatred" against a religious ideology, I can see why an individual might feel that way inclined, and therefore do not believe they should be arrested for this. Accordingly, I believe a supplementary protection for freedom of speech should be added to section 29J of the Act, as highlighted in bold:

"29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of hatred, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
 

Illegal Immigrants – they are not Asymlum Seekers

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Why is this idea important?

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

JOINING UK SPOUSE TO FOREIGN SPOUSE

The current rules state that the UK spouse needs to be in full time employment for at least 6 months and there are questions related to the use/need for government funding.  If the spouse takes a low paid full time position, it is hard for the UK spouse to be able to afford the visa and air fare that the foreign spouse needs before access to the UK can be achieved.  Without access to government funding, the UK spouse would need to be earning in the region of £20k per year, minimum.

I would like the rules changed to state that the UK Spouse can access government funds.  This would allow funds to become available for the purpose of purchasing a visa, air fare and other necessities in order for the foreign spouse to enter the UK.   Alternatively, make the rules more comprehensive.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The current rules state that the UK spouse needs to be in full time employment for at least 6 months and there are questions related to the use/need for government funding.  If the spouse takes a low paid full time position, it is hard for the UK spouse to be able to afford the visa and air fare that the foreign spouse needs before access to the UK can be achieved.  Without access to government funding, the UK spouse would need to be earning in the region of £20k per year, minimum.

I would like the rules changed to state that the UK Spouse can access government funds.  This would allow funds to become available for the purpose of purchasing a visa, air fare and other necessities in order for the foreign spouse to enter the UK.   Alternatively, make the rules more comprehensive.

 

 

 

Welfare and European immigration

I wasnt sure which category this should go in but it effects us all:

– Why is it that people from Europe can come into this country and start applying for welfare as soon as they step foot in the country? People should have similar critera to stay in this country as those from outside europe – No access to healthcare / welfare unless they have contributed to the system and not allowed to stay here unless they can prove they can provide for themselves or family over a 5 year period.

This would default the European free travel – and not cause britain to become a disability haven.

(I have first hand experience of people who are not fit to work in their home countries due to cardiac / mental health / physical disabilities who are willing to travel to the UK to claim welfare and be looked after for the rest of their years – now if thats not a drain on the system I dont know what is!)

Why is this idea important?

I wasnt sure which category this should go in but it effects us all:

– Why is it that people from Europe can come into this country and start applying for welfare as soon as they step foot in the country? People should have similar critera to stay in this country as those from outside europe – No access to healthcare / welfare unless they have contributed to the system and not allowed to stay here unless they can prove they can provide for themselves or family over a 5 year period.

This would default the European free travel – and not cause britain to become a disability haven.

(I have first hand experience of people who are not fit to work in their home countries due to cardiac / mental health / physical disabilities who are willing to travel to the UK to claim welfare and be looked after for the rest of their years – now if thats not a drain on the system I dont know what is!)

Scrap eBorders before it goes ‘live’ in 2014

The eBorders huge database computer system has been declared ILLEGAL under European Law, for EU Citizens. So it cannot be used LEGALLY as originally planned by the Blair/Brown Government.

The Blair/Brown Government said they would now make it a 'voluntary" way to jump the Border queues at the UK's Airports & Ports. By being 'pre-checked" before you travel, you can then walk through the fast track when you arrive.

Why didn't they realise it is ILLEGAL under EU Law? What a waste of money!

Costing £1.2bn it should be scrapped.

The EU has stated that it is illegal to hinder, check, or hassle EU citizens at EU borders.

So this system which the Brown Labour Government pretended was a counter terrorism tool, but was really a Tax and Court Fine enforcing tool.( Brown's people envisiged that if UK Citizens were stopped from travelling abroad if the owed Tax or Court fines, this would encourage UK citizens to pay on time.)

All the terrorists captured todate in the UK would have passed all checks, having clean records and in some cases being NHS Doctors. So eBorders would have been useless in these cases.

David Cameron stated during the Election Campaign that he wants to scrap all Labour's planned huge Databases.  Well this has got to be the biggest one, bigger than the ID Cards would have been.

Let's bite the bullet, and scrap it now.

___________________________________________

If the the Blair/Brown Government have signed a binding contract with the American suppliers of the system; then perhaps the system could be modified to make the Visa application system more efficient for the UK Embassies around the World. This could lead to fewer Staff being employed in our Foreign Embassies?

 

Why is this idea important?

The eBorders huge database computer system has been declared ILLEGAL under European Law, for EU Citizens. So it cannot be used LEGALLY as originally planned by the Blair/Brown Government.

The Blair/Brown Government said they would now make it a 'voluntary" way to jump the Border queues at the UK's Airports & Ports. By being 'pre-checked" before you travel, you can then walk through the fast track when you arrive.

Why didn't they realise it is ILLEGAL under EU Law? What a waste of money!

Costing £1.2bn it should be scrapped.

The EU has stated that it is illegal to hinder, check, or hassle EU citizens at EU borders.

So this system which the Brown Labour Government pretended was a counter terrorism tool, but was really a Tax and Court Fine enforcing tool.( Brown's people envisiged that if UK Citizens were stopped from travelling abroad if the owed Tax or Court fines, this would encourage UK citizens to pay on time.)

All the terrorists captured todate in the UK would have passed all checks, having clean records and in some cases being NHS Doctors. So eBorders would have been useless in these cases.

David Cameron stated during the Election Campaign that he wants to scrap all Labour's planned huge Databases.  Well this has got to be the biggest one, bigger than the ID Cards would have been.

Let's bite the bullet, and scrap it now.

___________________________________________

If the the Blair/Brown Government have signed a binding contract with the American suppliers of the system; then perhaps the system could be modified to make the Visa application system more efficient for the UK Embassies around the World. This could lead to fewer Staff being employed in our Foreign Embassies?

 

One way to reduce immigration

It would appear that immigrants are attracted to the UK by the ease with which benefits can be obtained and also the range of benefits available . I am not sure what are the criteria for immigrants at present i.e is there a hold back period for which no benefits are paid , or do they have to have been in work for 6 or 12 months paying tax ? We should compare our benefits to say France, Ireland, Holland , Belgium and make sure that our rules for eligability are more stringent and less generous . We should also fingerprint claimants , check identities and cross reference addresses rigourously to minimise benefit fraud.

Why is this idea important?

It would appear that immigrants are attracted to the UK by the ease with which benefits can be obtained and also the range of benefits available . I am not sure what are the criteria for immigrants at present i.e is there a hold back period for which no benefits are paid , or do they have to have been in work for 6 or 12 months paying tax ? We should compare our benefits to say France, Ireland, Holland , Belgium and make sure that our rules for eligability are more stringent and less generous . We should also fingerprint claimants , check identities and cross reference addresses rigourously to minimise benefit fraud.