Human Rights Act and Legal Aid

To Remove the Human Rights Act from UK law and Replace it with a Bill Of Rights for the UK

To amend the Legal Aid Bill .i.e. To restrict it to UK citizens for Domestic laws only and getting a grip on suing people for coughing etc.

Why is this idea important?

To Remove the Human Rights Act from UK law and Replace it with a Bill Of Rights for the UK

To amend the Legal Aid Bill .i.e. To restrict it to UK citizens for Domestic laws only and getting a grip on suing people for coughing etc.

Stop Copyright Industry Using UK Taxpayers Money To Privately Prosecute People

The "copyright industry", the richest industry in the world, uses a legal loophole in UK law that allows them to privately prosecute people or companies using UK Taxpayers money. All legal bills racked up by these private prosecutors are paid out of the public purse whether the copyright industry wins OR loses!

Why is this idea important?

The "copyright industry", the richest industry in the world, uses a legal loophole in UK law that allows them to privately prosecute people or companies using UK Taxpayers money. All legal bills racked up by these private prosecutors are paid out of the public purse whether the copyright industry wins OR loses!

Health and Safety

Local Authorities, businesses, schools and other service providers are stifled by a requirement to overly analyse risks to the public and thier workforce and put in place excessive measures to reduce such risk to almost zero. The result of this is a significanty curtailed service provision and increase in costs.

To my mind, these risk analyses and "health and safety" provisions are driven by a fear of being sued in the event of an accident. Even frivilous lawsuits cost money to defend, but with the availablity of legal aid the recent explosion in "no win no fee" solicitors, a victim of an accident has nothing to lose in pursuing a claim for compensation.

It is not the health and safety laws that has resulted in the well known maxim "health and safety gone mad", but rather the ease of bringing a claim without fear of having to foot the bill of doing so.

My idea is this: abolish "no win no fee"; make anyone who wants to bring an action in court foot the bill. This would not discourage genuine claimants who, if successful, would have its costs paid for my the losing party in any event, but will discourage frivilous claimants. In addition, tighten up the rules relating to legal aid. Make legal aid dependent upon an intial review of the case and only those which had say 80% chance of success are funded.

Why is this idea important?

Local Authorities, businesses, schools and other service providers are stifled by a requirement to overly analyse risks to the public and thier workforce and put in place excessive measures to reduce such risk to almost zero. The result of this is a significanty curtailed service provision and increase in costs.

To my mind, these risk analyses and "health and safety" provisions are driven by a fear of being sued in the event of an accident. Even frivilous lawsuits cost money to defend, but with the availablity of legal aid the recent explosion in "no win no fee" solicitors, a victim of an accident has nothing to lose in pursuing a claim for compensation.

It is not the health and safety laws that has resulted in the well known maxim "health and safety gone mad", but rather the ease of bringing a claim without fear of having to foot the bill of doing so.

My idea is this: abolish "no win no fee"; make anyone who wants to bring an action in court foot the bill. This would not discourage genuine claimants who, if successful, would have its costs paid for my the losing party in any event, but will discourage frivilous claimants. In addition, tighten up the rules relating to legal aid. Make legal aid dependent upon an intial review of the case and only those which had say 80% chance of success are funded.