Which Laws Have Been Passed?

It is great asking which Laws should be repealed, but I am sure many people don't even know which Laws (and how many) have been passed and hence which should/could be repealed.

Therefore it would make sense to publish a directory of Laws that are in force, when they were passed and a summary of their intent and effect.  I am sure that can be achieved in this age of technology. This would be great for the citizen who can quickly look through basic information and be pointed to other areas for more detailed information if needed.

May even a good place to add information about Laws being considered and when they are due for review, debate, white paper, green paper (whatever colour it is) and date it is exoected in Parliament and voted upon.

Why is this idea important?

It is great asking which Laws should be repealed, but I am sure many people don't even know which Laws (and how many) have been passed and hence which should/could be repealed.

Therefore it would make sense to publish a directory of Laws that are in force, when they were passed and a summary of their intent and effect.  I am sure that can be achieved in this age of technology. This would be great for the citizen who can quickly look through basic information and be pointed to other areas for more detailed information if needed.

May even a good place to add information about Laws being considered and when they are due for review, debate, white paper, green paper (whatever colour it is) and date it is exoected in Parliament and voted upon.

Repeal the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Why is this idea important?

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

The purchase of politics

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.

Why is this idea important?

In review of current laws which impose dificulty or taxation on one sector of the community, to a higher degre than others, we invariably find those laws have a foundation in the lobby groups hired by the same governments to promote agenda, suitable only to their partnered big buisiness interests, while government intrusions were amplified beyond the minimal levels of imposition we normally expect from governments

The measure of qualification for a law should always be to ask; did power create knowlege to subnstantiate new rules? This endeavor is also known as the purchase of politics, which in most civilized democracies, even when innitiated through a third party, is an illegal use of the public purse.

We can see this in the promotions of many campaigns originating out of financially conflicted UN agencies such as the World Health Organization who contend that all things are connected to public health.

What politicians loosely refer to today as “science” was the identical process utilized to prove that Aryans were the superior gene pool. Are they now in that corner too?  It was not untill the devastating effects of those nanny state "protections" of the gene pool, that scientists at the behest of UNESCO in seasrch of an answer to Nazi eugenics promotions, realized; that if we all originated from the same gene pool, and therefore all variance is environmental. The same misdirection can be seen in the promotions of hatred, developed by the fears of second [and now third] hand tobacco smoke.
 
If you would contend, the "science" is irrefutable, I have a huge problem with your reasoning skills.  
 
A sign on the door offers all the protection we ever needed and offers the least intrusion by governments, in order to provide all the protection a phobuic or neurotic personality ever required while protecting the maximum measure of freedom and respect that we all value first and foremost. 
 
The public health groups who find a danger in the smoke you would normally expect to find in a bar, where everyone supposedly goes to protect their health. Judging by the evidence they offer, those fears would only find scant reason to develop any level of theoretic concern, if those so called experts, spent an inordinate amount of time sitting on a bar-stool. Perhaps in order to solve this problem those people at the heads of the government funded and conflicted big pharma lobby groups, should be directed to their local AA meetings and that level of risk would decrease dramatically.  
 
Epidemiology is exclusively opinion and postulation, it is everything science is not. The smoking ban divisions of community or what the Public health opportunists and spin doctors refer to as “denormalization”, is an abusive act, supported only in an exercise of power creating knowledge. Those who give any of it credibility deserve every bit of the inevitable hubris that will eventually flow from that kind of knowledge, during their prosecutions.