Scrap enforced and harmful fluoridation which is against European directives.

fluoride is put in water when it is known some peaple are harmed by presence of the substance. It is intolerable as – although it may and this is not certain- assist some people with prevention of dental caries other  consumers are being provided with water contanminated by a  substance that definitely does them harm and causes adverse reactions .

 

The rules which permit this abusive contamination of water supplies must be stopped as soon as possible.

Why is this idea important?

fluoride is put in water when it is known some peaple are harmed by presence of the substance. It is intolerable as – although it may and this is not certain- assist some people with prevention of dental caries other  consumers are being provided with water contanminated by a  substance that definitely does them harm and causes adverse reactions .

 

The rules which permit this abusive contamination of water supplies must be stopped as soon as possible.

Address Government’s limited power to block or repeal EU Regulations

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Long term strategic mechanisms to prevent the creation of unnecessary offences

The explosion of legislation and the creation of additional offences under the last government is a symptom of an underlying problem.  Government and parliament are compelled to introduce new legislation as a way of proving that they are taking an active role.

Removing individual offences will not curb this inherent momentum.  Mechanisms are required to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of legislation.  Parliamentary scrutiny is not sufficient, even if there is a change in stance to ask "is this bill really required" at the committee stage.

Strategic mechanisms are required to reverse the overall trend.  Examples can be found in other democracies and lessons can be learned from business.

Sunset Rules

The Clinton administration introduced "sunset" rules: i.e. new government agencies were automatically closed after 3 years unless a specific case was made for their retention.  A similar rule could be applied to all new offences.  After 36 months if charges had not been brought under the act, or if the number of charges did not meet a previously defined threshhold, the act would automatically become void.  In addition, any act would need to be specifically renewed after 36 months.

Lessons from business

Business process re-engineering focuses on reducing business processes and making them more efficient. The drive is not only to cut unnecessary regulation but also to prevent the built in tendency to proliferate documentation.  A simple mechanism is to only allow the introduction of a new process or form if 3 existing processes or documents are removed.  Over time this prevents unnecessary  regulation and drives a slimming down of the processes and process documentation.

An identical approach to legislation and offences defined by statute would over the long term reduce the burden of legislation and ensure that the legislation that did exist was more highly focused.

Why is this idea important?

The explosion of legislation and the creation of additional offences under the last government is a symptom of an underlying problem.  Government and parliament are compelled to introduce new legislation as a way of proving that they are taking an active role.

Removing individual offences will not curb this inherent momentum.  Mechanisms are required to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of legislation.  Parliamentary scrutiny is not sufficient, even if there is a change in stance to ask "is this bill really required" at the committee stage.

Strategic mechanisms are required to reverse the overall trend.  Examples can be found in other democracies and lessons can be learned from business.

Sunset Rules

The Clinton administration introduced "sunset" rules: i.e. new government agencies were automatically closed after 3 years unless a specific case was made for their retention.  A similar rule could be applied to all new offences.  After 36 months if charges had not been brought under the act, or if the number of charges did not meet a previously defined threshhold, the act would automatically become void.  In addition, any act would need to be specifically renewed after 36 months.

Lessons from business

Business process re-engineering focuses on reducing business processes and making them more efficient. The drive is not only to cut unnecessary regulation but also to prevent the built in tendency to proliferate documentation.  A simple mechanism is to only allow the introduction of a new process or form if 3 existing processes or documents are removed.  Over time this prevents unnecessary  regulation and drives a slimming down of the processes and process documentation.

An identical approach to legislation and offences defined by statute would over the long term reduce the burden of legislation and ensure that the legislation that did exist was more highly focused.

All Proposed Laws Should Attain ‘Crystal Mark’ (As per the Plain English Campaign) Before Being Added To The Statute Books

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

Why is this idea important?

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

The health and safety and Qualification mess

Britainis gripped by an enormous hand of bureaucracy. The problem is that what makes sense at a local level can frequently makes nonsense at a macro level. For example, I know a Canadian who came over to England. He was able to drive legally for one year. After that, it was illegal for him to drive manual transmission cars without taking a full driver's test. What is a driver's license for if not safety? Does this mean he was safe for one year and then suddenly unsafe? Was this to stop the plague of accidents caused by Canadians improperly shifting from fourth to fifth on the M25? I'm sure all the time and money spent testing these people is far more important than spending it on new drivers.

When I wrote an MP about this (a Conservative one) he was at first as shocked as we were, but once he got the official Humphrey's explanation, the logic backing up this position became clear. What I would like to challenge is the usefulness of a system that supports a logical system that creates such absurd situations.

I was on the National Pandemic Flu Line. The parents asked me if there were any side effects. Since I had researched the NHS website I knew the answer, however, it was not in my script. My supervisors warned me that I could not deviate from the script even by a word and so if I told the parents there were indeed a possibility of side effects from Tamiflu (especially with children) they would have to let me go. On the surface, this looks mad. But when we break it down, it all makes sense. We had to stick to script or the private company could lose the huge NHS contract. So they had to enforce the rules. The NHS felt they had to stick to script because otherwise they (and the agent) would be open to being sued by the public and all the wonderful publicity that would entail. Why would the public sue? They are repeatedly told that if they follow recommended advice and something goes wrong, they can sue if that knowledge turns out to be harmful. By not following advice they themselves must take responsibility for the outcome.

So who is wrong here?

The problem is that the British bureaucracy is looking at rational at a local level and therefore missing opportunities to be extraordinary at the macro level. All of society is supporting this cycle, just as it did with the Flu Line. So when I did get laid off I was told that they would have chosen someone else if I had stuck to script. To do the job, I was told, I had to 'leave [my] morals at the door.' Is this really the Britain we want?

Health and Safety causes people to stop thinking for themselves because everything is supposed to be safe. I don't have the study to hand, but apparently bicycle riders who don't use bright jackets and helmets are less likely to get hit by cars.

On a recent construction job, I was told that I had to buy a CSCS card for £45 in order to 'quality' to be on-site. Everyone I spoke to (supervisors and labourers) on site agreed it was a complete waste of time but they needed to do it for legal reasons. Similarly, we had to wear hard hats even though we were constantly looking down and the hat would constantly fall into our eyes preventing us from seeing. The swing bucket driver told me he had had people walk straight into his bucket because their helmets were preventing them from seeing their own environment.

What people keep forgetting is that complex systems such as human society do not work on linear principles. That is why when the Canadians reduced their police force, crime went down. I have built a simulation of human society to demonstrate these principles and wanted to take it to academia. Unfortunately, once again I ran straight into a bureaucracy and I had an extraordinary experience that left me without any money or a means to live except by temporary work or benefits … which does not earn enough for me to continue working in university (a story for another time).

If we were to learn how to utilise the principles of self-organisation to our benefit, we could transform this society in the way so many of us feel should be possible but somehow keeps eluding us.

I will give you one more thing to consider. We are missing huge realities facing us. 1/3 rd of the ecosystem has disappeared since 1970. In 2003 everyone agreed to stop it. In 2010 it was agreed that agreeing to stop it didn't work. 1 in 7 people in the world are going hungry right now. In the 1980's (Live Aid) we largely agreed to stop it. Again, we have to agree that agreeing to do something to change a large complex system does not work. The point is, we need something different if we are going to make real changes.

On the other hand, without lifting a finger we managed to begin altering the climate of the earth. Now imagine the ridicule 100 years ago if we declared our intention to change the earth's climate without any decisions, any laws, or any human wilful intent at all. If this power were consciously available …

There is a huge lesson in this but I fear it will take a lot more than 10,000 words to teach it. My suggestion is we use the exact same mechanisms to save the eco-culture, to cut crime, to create a loving society that so many feel should be possible.

For example, in the example of the Flu Line, how bad would it be if we began to teach the citizens of the UK to once again take personal responsibility for their own decisions? That getting advice was part of that, but learning how to distinguish good advice from bad was also very important.

Qualifications guarantee nothing (except the ability to sue). For example, in the US there was a fully qualified commercial pilot flying a twin turbo prop when a warning light incorrectly came one. The fully qualified pilot then decided to shut the engine down. This was an incorrect but safe decision to make. However, he shut down the wrong engine and then proceeded to incorrectly apply rudder. In other words, instead of making the plane fly straight while being pulled by one engine on one side of the airplane, he used the rudder to aid that engine to spin the airplane around. A pilot with any feel for flying would have immediately felt something was wrong and applied the opposite rudder, but this completely and fully qualified pilot successfully fought off the co-pilot and managed to spin the airplane into the ground killing everyone on board.

Qualifications are perfectly capable of empowering people with terrible failures. Any society that leans too heavily on the qualification becomes blind to real skill. Mediocre (and sometimes poor) skill can easily become just as heavily qualified as excellent skill.

Why do you think so many teachers are concerned that we are teaching to pass tests instead of actually teaching? We can just as easily spin and crash in life in spite of being fully qualified. The country that does not notice this is quite vulnerable.

The first step is to drastically scale back health and safety and qualifications (and other things … I'm just picking on these two) and return power to the people in the form or teaching them again how to be responsible for themselves in a real way.

While it makes me sad that this might be the only reason this is considered at all is consider all the money you would save.

The principles of emergent behaviour and self-organisation are difficult for those so used to thinking in cause and effect terms. I would be pleased to aid that understanding. If anyone wants to know more, you know where to find me.

By the way, Cameron should try to ban the site supporting Moat because the people there can later be shamed and that will be an incentive for more awareness to future generations. Again, simply by letting people become responsible for what they do could do a great deal of healing in the UK.

In my opinion, of course.

Have a good one.

Why is this idea important?

Britainis gripped by an enormous hand of bureaucracy. The problem is that what makes sense at a local level can frequently makes nonsense at a macro level. For example, I know a Canadian who came over to England. He was able to drive legally for one year. After that, it was illegal for him to drive manual transmission cars without taking a full driver's test. What is a driver's license for if not safety? Does this mean he was safe for one year and then suddenly unsafe? Was this to stop the plague of accidents caused by Canadians improperly shifting from fourth to fifth on the M25? I'm sure all the time and money spent testing these people is far more important than spending it on new drivers.

When I wrote an MP about this (a Conservative one) he was at first as shocked as we were, but once he got the official Humphrey's explanation, the logic backing up this position became clear. What I would like to challenge is the usefulness of a system that supports a logical system that creates such absurd situations.

I was on the National Pandemic Flu Line. The parents asked me if there were any side effects. Since I had researched the NHS website I knew the answer, however, it was not in my script. My supervisors warned me that I could not deviate from the script even by a word and so if I told the parents there were indeed a possibility of side effects from Tamiflu (especially with children) they would have to let me go. On the surface, this looks mad. But when we break it down, it all makes sense. We had to stick to script or the private company could lose the huge NHS contract. So they had to enforce the rules. The NHS felt they had to stick to script because otherwise they (and the agent) would be open to being sued by the public and all the wonderful publicity that would entail. Why would the public sue? They are repeatedly told that if they follow recommended advice and something goes wrong, they can sue if that knowledge turns out to be harmful. By not following advice they themselves must take responsibility for the outcome.

So who is wrong here?

The problem is that the British bureaucracy is looking at rational at a local level and therefore missing opportunities to be extraordinary at the macro level. All of society is supporting this cycle, just as it did with the Flu Line. So when I did get laid off I was told that they would have chosen someone else if I had stuck to script. To do the job, I was told, I had to 'leave [my] morals at the door.' Is this really the Britain we want?

Health and Safety causes people to stop thinking for themselves because everything is supposed to be safe. I don't have the study to hand, but apparently bicycle riders who don't use bright jackets and helmets are less likely to get hit by cars.

On a recent construction job, I was told that I had to buy a CSCS card for £45 in order to 'quality' to be on-site. Everyone I spoke to (supervisors and labourers) on site agreed it was a complete waste of time but they needed to do it for legal reasons. Similarly, we had to wear hard hats even though we were constantly looking down and the hat would constantly fall into our eyes preventing us from seeing. The swing bucket driver told me he had had people walk straight into his bucket because their helmets were preventing them from seeing their own environment.

What people keep forgetting is that complex systems such as human society do not work on linear principles. That is why when the Canadians reduced their police force, crime went down. I have built a simulation of human society to demonstrate these principles and wanted to take it to academia. Unfortunately, once again I ran straight into a bureaucracy and I had an extraordinary experience that left me without any money or a means to live except by temporary work or benefits … which does not earn enough for me to continue working in university (a story for another time).

If we were to learn how to utilise the principles of self-organisation to our benefit, we could transform this society in the way so many of us feel should be possible but somehow keeps eluding us.

I will give you one more thing to consider. We are missing huge realities facing us. 1/3 rd of the ecosystem has disappeared since 1970. In 2003 everyone agreed to stop it. In 2010 it was agreed that agreeing to stop it didn't work. 1 in 7 people in the world are going hungry right now. In the 1980's (Live Aid) we largely agreed to stop it. Again, we have to agree that agreeing to do something to change a large complex system does not work. The point is, we need something different if we are going to make real changes.

On the other hand, without lifting a finger we managed to begin altering the climate of the earth. Now imagine the ridicule 100 years ago if we declared our intention to change the earth's climate without any decisions, any laws, or any human wilful intent at all. If this power were consciously available …

There is a huge lesson in this but I fear it will take a lot more than 10,000 words to teach it. My suggestion is we use the exact same mechanisms to save the eco-culture, to cut crime, to create a loving society that so many feel should be possible.

For example, in the example of the Flu Line, how bad would it be if we began to teach the citizens of the UK to once again take personal responsibility for their own decisions? That getting advice was part of that, but learning how to distinguish good advice from bad was also very important.

Qualifications guarantee nothing (except the ability to sue). For example, in the US there was a fully qualified commercial pilot flying a twin turbo prop when a warning light incorrectly came one. The fully qualified pilot then decided to shut the engine down. This was an incorrect but safe decision to make. However, he shut down the wrong engine and then proceeded to incorrectly apply rudder. In other words, instead of making the plane fly straight while being pulled by one engine on one side of the airplane, he used the rudder to aid that engine to spin the airplane around. A pilot with any feel for flying would have immediately felt something was wrong and applied the opposite rudder, but this completely and fully qualified pilot successfully fought off the co-pilot and managed to spin the airplane into the ground killing everyone on board.

Qualifications are perfectly capable of empowering people with terrible failures. Any society that leans too heavily on the qualification becomes blind to real skill. Mediocre (and sometimes poor) skill can easily become just as heavily qualified as excellent skill.

Why do you think so many teachers are concerned that we are teaching to pass tests instead of actually teaching? We can just as easily spin and crash in life in spite of being fully qualified. The country that does not notice this is quite vulnerable.

The first step is to drastically scale back health and safety and qualifications (and other things … I'm just picking on these two) and return power to the people in the form or teaching them again how to be responsible for themselves in a real way.

While it makes me sad that this might be the only reason this is considered at all is consider all the money you would save.

The principles of emergent behaviour and self-organisation are difficult for those so used to thinking in cause and effect terms. I would be pleased to aid that understanding. If anyone wants to know more, you know where to find me.

By the way, Cameron should try to ban the site supporting Moat because the people there can later be shamed and that will be an incentive for more awareness to future generations. Again, simply by letting people become responsible for what they do could do a great deal of healing in the UK.

In my opinion, of course.

Have a good one.

Review all Legislation since 1940

During World War I many liberties were taken away by war time legislation, but when the war ended it was all repealed. At the start of World War II the United Kingdom was able to move onto a wartime footing by very quickly passing again ll World Wat I legislation . However, it was not repealed by the new government in 1945 as the United Kingdom moved into 60 years of socialist inspired goverment under both parties. Thus the state steadily eroded basic freedoms of the individual and intruded more and more into every aspect of our lives.

A root and branch review of every single law passed since the reinstatement of World War I legislation from a basic libertarian perspective would result in genuine returns of freedom to the individual. The Government should give themselves the target of repealing a law every month so that at the end of its 5 years in office it will be known in history as "The Great Repealing Parliament".

Why is this idea important?

During World War I many liberties were taken away by war time legislation, but when the war ended it was all repealed. At the start of World War II the United Kingdom was able to move onto a wartime footing by very quickly passing again ll World Wat I legislation . However, it was not repealed by the new government in 1945 as the United Kingdom moved into 60 years of socialist inspired goverment under both parties. Thus the state steadily eroded basic freedoms of the individual and intruded more and more into every aspect of our lives.

A root and branch review of every single law passed since the reinstatement of World War I legislation from a basic libertarian perspective would result in genuine returns of freedom to the individual. The Government should give themselves the target of repealing a law every month so that at the end of its 5 years in office it will be known in history as "The Great Repealing Parliament".

Contracts of Employment

Incorporate all Employment Legislation passed over the last 20 years into one Government Code of Good Employment Practice. Make sure the Code is written in clear english. Then repeal all previous legislation and pass a single Act requiring all businessess (particularly small businesses)  to follow the Code. Enforcement of the Code would be via the existing network of Employment Tribunals. All applicants to Tribunals should be asked to pay a fee upfront before they appear. If successful the fee would be refunded. This approach would significantly reduce the influence of the Legal Parasites on UK business.

Why is this idea important?

Incorporate all Employment Legislation passed over the last 20 years into one Government Code of Good Employment Practice. Make sure the Code is written in clear english. Then repeal all previous legislation and pass a single Act requiring all businessess (particularly small businesses)  to follow the Code. Enforcement of the Code would be via the existing network of Employment Tribunals. All applicants to Tribunals should be asked to pay a fee upfront before they appear. If successful the fee would be refunded. This approach would significantly reduce the influence of the Legal Parasites on UK business.

Repeal the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act

This is the lunatic Act introduced by the last Government to allow them to amend laws which, in their frantic churning out of legislation, they had gotten all wrong in the first place. It allows them to amend legislation without coming back to Parliament and debating the issue properly.

It should be repealed in its' entirety.

Why is this idea important?

This is the lunatic Act introduced by the last Government to allow them to amend laws which, in their frantic churning out of legislation, they had gotten all wrong in the first place. It allows them to amend legislation without coming back to Parliament and debating the issue properly.

It should be repealed in its' entirety.

All Laws to have automatic sunset clause

At present politians feel they need to be seen to be 'doing something' so each session must have new laws to debate and enact. 

This tends to encourage the making of law.  If all laws became defunt after a set time, then each parliament would need to spend more time debating and re-enacting the necessary ones in, updating them, and therefore have less time available to expand the number and breadth of the law.

Legislators will be best to decide what the period for this sunset clasue should be – it could vary, but the net effect will be to clean up all our law over time. 

 

Why is this idea important?

At present politians feel they need to be seen to be 'doing something' so each session must have new laws to debate and enact. 

This tends to encourage the making of law.  If all laws became defunt after a set time, then each parliament would need to spend more time debating and re-enacting the necessary ones in, updating them, and therefore have less time available to expand the number and breadth of the law.

Legislators will be best to decide what the period for this sunset clasue should be – it could vary, but the net effect will be to clean up all our law over time. 

 

Police Reprimands should be struck off Enhanced CRB when received as a minor

Police reprimands/cautions should be removed from Enhanced CRB checks when received as a minor after a short time say 2/3 yrs.When my daughter was just 13yrs old and,a mixed up teenager,she received a reprimand for shoplifting along with another girl.She was not charged or cautioned but merely reprimanded The police  assured us that this would be removed from their records after 5yrs as was the legislation at the time...Suitably chastened she buckled down and became a model student and got a place at medical school  having now completed her first year on the road to becoming a doctor.

However  during her first term she was summoned by the university medical school to be told that the reprimand had shown up on their enhanced CRB check.To their credit they had taken no notice of such a minor misdemeanor committed such along time ago but warned her that this may cause problems for her in the future.

We have been told  that the legislation has been changed so that any information such as this on the Police Computer must be made available for an enhanced CRB check.The Association of Chief Police Officers are not sympathetic and will not make any exceptions. 

Why is this idea important?

Police reprimands/cautions should be removed from Enhanced CRB checks when received as a minor after a short time say 2/3 yrs.When my daughter was just 13yrs old and,a mixed up teenager,she received a reprimand for shoplifting along with another girl.She was not charged or cautioned but merely reprimanded The police  assured us that this would be removed from their records after 5yrs as was the legislation at the time...Suitably chastened she buckled down and became a model student and got a place at medical school  having now completed her first year on the road to becoming a doctor.

However  during her first term she was summoned by the university medical school to be told that the reprimand had shown up on their enhanced CRB check.To their credit they had taken no notice of such a minor misdemeanor committed such along time ago but warned her that this may cause problems for her in the future.

We have been told  that the legislation has been changed so that any information such as this on the Police Computer must be made available for an enhanced CRB check.The Association of Chief Police Officers are not sympathetic and will not make any exceptions. 

Each piece of legislation should have an expiry date

Each new piece of legislation should automatically expire 25 years after it is adopted.  This provision should also be added to each existing piece of legislation, with the expiry dates distributed at random over the next 25 years.

When a piece of legislation is due to expire within the next year, the enacting body (Parliament, Local Authority, etc.) will be reminded.  If it takes no action, the legislation will expire.  However, it can renew the legislation (as is or amended), or replace it.

Why is this idea important?

Each new piece of legislation should automatically expire 25 years after it is adopted.  This provision should also be added to each existing piece of legislation, with the expiry dates distributed at random over the next 25 years.

When a piece of legislation is due to expire within the next year, the enacting body (Parliament, Local Authority, etc.) will be reminded.  If it takes no action, the legislation will expire.  However, it can renew the legislation (as is or amended), or replace it.

Remove ‘Blame’ legislation

Remove all the knee jerk legislation introduced by the previous Govt, especially the legislation which holds parents responsible for the actions of the children and prosecutes and imprisons parents if the children do not behave. Controversial ideal I know but PUNISH THE CHILD for what they do.

Why is this idea important?

Remove all the knee jerk legislation introduced by the previous Govt, especially the legislation which holds parents responsible for the actions of the children and prosecutes and imprisons parents if the children do not behave. Controversial ideal I know but PUNISH THE CHILD for what they do.

Smoking Ban – Proposed amendment to the Smoke-Free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006 (Pubs and Clubs)

Fact #1. Smoking (and the consumption of tobacco products) is a legal activity.

Fact #2. An average of 21.5% of the UK adult (16+) population still smoked in 2008, according to Cancer Research UK.

Fact #3. In 2008, the UK tax revenue from smoking was £10 billion annually, according to the National Cancer Research Institute.  The cost of smoking-related illnesses was £2.7 billion annually.

The implementation of  The Smoke-Free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006 was draconian and heavy-handed, particularly in regard to pubs and clubs.  Publicans and Club committees (and by extension their customers and members) were not given a choice; it was a "one size fits all" regulation.  The resultant 'smoking areas' within these establishments were subject to excessive design requirements to the point of being spiteful and vindictive and the only other alternative was to smoke out on the street.

My proposal is that the regulations be amended to allow pubs and clubs to decide their own smoking policies.  Such establishments could declare themselves as being Smoking, Smoker-Friendly or Non-Smoking places and display a sign accordingly.  This would give the general public information on which to make their choices.  If you're a non-smoker, avoid Smoking pubs and vice-versa.  You could even levy a licence fee (say £365 annually) for an establishment to allow smoking on its premises.

No doubt on reading this there will be the usual responses from non-smokers saying "what about those that work in the pub/club – shouldn't they be protected from the smoke?"  The answer is simple – If the landlord/committee decides upon a smoking policy, then the staff should sign a declaration saying that they agree to work under those policy conditions.  If not, then they should seek employment in a smoke-free pub/club.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Fact #1. Smoking (and the consumption of tobacco products) is a legal activity.

Fact #2. An average of 21.5% of the UK adult (16+) population still smoked in 2008, according to Cancer Research UK.

Fact #3. In 2008, the UK tax revenue from smoking was £10 billion annually, according to the National Cancer Research Institute.  The cost of smoking-related illnesses was £2.7 billion annually.

The implementation of  The Smoke-Free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006 was draconian and heavy-handed, particularly in regard to pubs and clubs.  Publicans and Club committees (and by extension their customers and members) were not given a choice; it was a "one size fits all" regulation.  The resultant 'smoking areas' within these establishments were subject to excessive design requirements to the point of being spiteful and vindictive and the only other alternative was to smoke out on the street.

My proposal is that the regulations be amended to allow pubs and clubs to decide their own smoking policies.  Such establishments could declare themselves as being Smoking, Smoker-Friendly or Non-Smoking places and display a sign accordingly.  This would give the general public information on which to make their choices.  If you're a non-smoker, avoid Smoking pubs and vice-versa.  You could even levy a licence fee (say £365 annually) for an establishment to allow smoking on its premises.

No doubt on reading this there will be the usual responses from non-smokers saying "what about those that work in the pub/club – shouldn't they be protected from the smoke?"  The answer is simple – If the landlord/committee decides upon a smoking policy, then the staff should sign a declaration saying that they agree to work under those policy conditions.  If not, then they should seek employment in a smoke-free pub/club.

 

 

 

Human rights Act 1998: Amendment

The following amendment is proposed to Section 2: 3 (continues in comments)


(a) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
(b) by the Secretary of State, in relation to proceedings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Island; or
(c) by a United Kingdom department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in its own Country of the United Kingdom—

The following amendment is proposed to Part 5d of Section 4

(5) In this section “court” means—
(a) the House of Lords;
(b) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;
(c) the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
(d) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary sitting otherwise than as a trial court or the Court of Session;
(e) in England the High Court or the Court of Appeal;
(f) in Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, until such courts fashioned as a High Court and a Court of Appeal; or a High Court of Justicary -with subsection d applicable- exsist for those countries of our United Kingdom.


The following amendment is proposed to Section 5
5 Right of Crown to intervene
(1) Where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Crown is entitled to notice in accordance with rules of court.
(2) In any case to which subsection (1) applies—
(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him),
(b) a member of the Scottish Executive,
(c) a Northern Ireland Minister,
(d) a Northern Ireland department,
(e) a member of  the Welsh Assembly Government,

is entitled, on giving notice in accordance with rules of court, to be joined as a party to the proceedings.

The following amendment is proposed to Section 6:
(3) In this section “public authority” includes—
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature and are -or were at time of the act- vested with authority to act in the interests of the public,

The following amenedment is proposed
7 Proceedings
(1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

but only if the claimant;

(b)(a) is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act, or
(b)(b) is the none judicial representitive or provided advocate of; an individual who is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act and is legally determined to be insufficently competent.

(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if they satisfy subsection (1)ba or (1)bb.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person is a victim of an unlawful act only in satisfaction of  subsection (1)ba or (1)bb for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act.

Amendment:

11 Safeguard for existing human rights

A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on such person by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; or
(b) the persons right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which they could make or bring apart from sections 7 to 9.

The following amendments are proposed:

12 Freedom of expression
(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
(2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made (“the respondent”) is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—
(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or
(b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.
(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless–
    (a) the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not
        be allowed, and/or;
   (b) the court is satistfied that the respondant is likely to accelerate publication to moot the  
        purpose of relief.

(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—
(a) the extent to which—
(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii) it is, or would be, in the insterets of public safety or civil wellbeing for the material to be published;
(iii) in the case of journalistic material the likelyhood of none self-inflicted endangerment or damage to the applicants physical or mental health should the material be based on information or presented in a fashion that may be later found to be, Malicious, Inaccurate or unlawful.

Further amendments:

SCHEDULE 1 The Articles

1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No person shall be deprived of thier life intentionally save–

 (a) in the execution of a sentence, laid upon said person by agreement of three lawful courts following said persons thrice agreed conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

Article 3 Prohibition of torture

No person shall be–

 (i)  intentionally or maliciously subjected to any act by which is caused significant pain or suffering, whether physical, emotional or mental.
 (ii) subjected to inhuman, dehumanizing or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude-
   (i) As a penalty provided by law.
  (ii) As a means of profit, torture or penalty.
  (iii) By any culture, organisation, relatives or group.
  (iiii) Without their direct, uncoerced, individual attianment of a notarial will.
  (iiiii) Without recourse or capacity to revoke forementioned will or have said will revoked by probate court, tribunal or lawful court.

2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of public safety, or the detention of a minor deemed 'competent' by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervison or the minors lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious uncommon or fatal diseases, of persons of harmfully unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language or by methord which they best understand, of the reasons for thier arrest, thier rights while under arrest and of any charges against them.

3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4 Everyone who is deprived of thier liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings and be granted means or assistance by which to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of thier detention shall be decided speedily by a court and thier release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Why is this idea important?

The following amendment is proposed to Section 2: 3 (continues in comments)


(a) by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
(b) by the Secretary of State, in relation to proceedings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Island; or
(c) by a United Kingdom department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in its own Country of the United Kingdom—

The following amendment is proposed to Part 5d of Section 4

(5) In this section “court” means—
(a) the House of Lords;
(b) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;
(c) the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
(d) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary sitting otherwise than as a trial court or the Court of Session;
(e) in England the High Court or the Court of Appeal;
(f) in Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, until such courts fashioned as a High Court and a Court of Appeal; or a High Court of Justicary -with subsection d applicable- exsist for those countries of our United Kingdom.


The following amendment is proposed to Section 5
5 Right of Crown to intervene
(1) Where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Crown is entitled to notice in accordance with rules of court.
(2) In any case to which subsection (1) applies—
(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him),
(b) a member of the Scottish Executive,
(c) a Northern Ireland Minister,
(d) a Northern Ireland department,
(e) a member of  the Welsh Assembly Government,

is entitled, on giving notice in accordance with rules of court, to be joined as a party to the proceedings.

The following amendment is proposed to Section 6:
(3) In this section “public authority” includes—
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature and are -or were at time of the act- vested with authority to act in the interests of the public,

The following amenedment is proposed
7 Proceedings
(1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may—
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

but only if the claimant;

(b)(a) is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act, or
(b)(b) is the none judicial representitive or provided advocate of; an individual who is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act and is legally determined to be insufficently competent.

(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if they satisfy subsection (1)ba or (1)bb.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person is a victim of an unlawful act only in satisfaction of  subsection (1)ba or (1)bb for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act.

Amendment:

11 Safeguard for existing human rights

A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on such person by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; or
(b) the persons right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which they could make or bring apart from sections 7 to 9.

The following amendments are proposed:

12 Freedom of expression
(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
(2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made (“the respondent”) is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—
(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or
(b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.
(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless–
    (a) the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not
        be allowed, and/or;
   (b) the court is satistfied that the respondant is likely to accelerate publication to moot the  
        purpose of relief.

(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—
(a) the extent to which—
(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii) it is, or would be, in the insterets of public safety or civil wellbeing for the material to be published;
(iii) in the case of journalistic material the likelyhood of none self-inflicted endangerment or damage to the applicants physical or mental health should the material be based on information or presented in a fashion that may be later found to be, Malicious, Inaccurate or unlawful.

Further amendments:

SCHEDULE 1 The Articles

1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No person shall be deprived of thier life intentionally save–

 (a) in the execution of a sentence, laid upon said person by agreement of three lawful courts following said persons thrice agreed conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

Article 3 Prohibition of torture

No person shall be–

 (i)  intentionally or maliciously subjected to any act by which is caused significant pain or suffering, whether physical, emotional or mental.
 (ii) subjected to inhuman, dehumanizing or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude-
   (i) As a penalty provided by law.
  (ii) As a means of profit, torture or penalty.
  (iii) By any culture, organisation, relatives or group.
  (iiii) Without their direct, uncoerced, individual attianment of a notarial will.
  (iiiii) Without recourse or capacity to revoke forementioned will or have said will revoked by probate court, tribunal or lawful court.

2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Article 5 Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of public safety, or the detention of a minor deemed 'competent' by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervison or the minors lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious uncommon or fatal diseases, of persons of harmfully unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language or by methord which they best understand, of the reasons for thier arrest, thier rights while under arrest and of any charges against them.

3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4 Everyone who is deprived of thier liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings and be granted means or assistance by which to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of thier detention shall be decided speedily by a court and thier release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Legalise all forms of weaponry.

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Why is this idea important?

Guess which country in the world has the highest percentage of gun ownership ?

Guess which country in the world has the lowest level of gun crime ?

Switzerland is the answer to both questions.

18 year old males do military service and take home their automatic weapons. The entire country is armed, and the Swiss army will sell citizens more weapons if they wish to have them, even rockets and anti tank guns etc.

Are you going to try breaking into someone's house when you know they have an assault rifle in there ? Are you going to pick a fight with someone who probably knows where you live and has an assualt rifle at home. What do the young guys that have weapons training and are made to do their military service think about clowns with hand guns, is it really so cool after all ? Not really.

What is the use of a criminal carrying a gun or a knife if most of the population have assault rilfles ?

Make it absolutely legal and treat people with respect, educate them and you remove the problem. Make it illegal, restrict it, and you make it a problem, you make it cool and you make it advantageous to criminals.

Scrap laws that condone sex with children.

We have laws that define "a child" as anyone "under 18." And yet, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, such laws condone sex with "children." That's sick! "Children" should not have sex – full stop – and we should scrap any laws that suggest otherwise! The age of consent should be the same as the age at which you become an adult – if it is any lower, then we are condoning sex with children!

Why is this idea important?

We have laws that define "a child" as anyone "under 18." And yet, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, such laws condone sex with "children." That's sick! "Children" should not have sex – full stop – and we should scrap any laws that suggest otherwise! The age of consent should be the same as the age at which you become an adult – if it is any lower, then we are condoning sex with children!

LIMITATIONS ACT MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE INCLUDING IFA’S

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) does not recognise the 15 year longstop rule(Limitations Act) in respect of advice given by IFA's. This law applies to every person in the UK apart from IFA's.

This is in breach of their Human Rights and must apply to all UK citizens no matter was profession.

I have personally discussed the matter with my former MP Mark Oaten who approached the Treasury and was advised that the Financial Ombudsman Service was effectively above the law and could ignore the Limitations Act at its will.

I do not believe that any government body has the right to ignore statute law.

This is direct discrimination against one sector and must be addressed.

Legal opinion has been sought and it has been established that this is in breach of the Human Rights Act.

Why is this idea important?

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) does not recognise the 15 year longstop rule(Limitations Act) in respect of advice given by IFA's. This law applies to every person in the UK apart from IFA's.

This is in breach of their Human Rights and must apply to all UK citizens no matter was profession.

I have personally discussed the matter with my former MP Mark Oaten who approached the Treasury and was advised that the Financial Ombudsman Service was effectively above the law and could ignore the Limitations Act at its will.

I do not believe that any government body has the right to ignore statute law.

This is direct discrimination against one sector and must be addressed.

Legal opinion has been sought and it has been established that this is in breach of the Human Rights Act.

One way extradition treaty to US, no evidence required.

In extradition cases, sufficient evidence must be shown for the trial of UK citizens on foreign soil, especially relating to the particular need for the suspect to be trialed in the other country.

eg. The case of Gary McKinnon.
 

Why is this idea important?

In extradition cases, sufficient evidence must be shown for the trial of UK citizens on foreign soil, especially relating to the particular need for the suspect to be trialed in the other country.

eg. The case of Gary McKinnon.
 

Remove restrictive checks for parents with children

To prevent reoccurrences of incidents such as this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10558648.stm

The presumption of guilt in this country is ridiculous. Parents should be able to support their children at sports days and other events. This kind of extreme paranoia prevents parents from seeing important moments in the lives of their children.

Why is this idea important?

To prevent reoccurrences of incidents such as this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10558648.stm

The presumption of guilt in this country is ridiculous. Parents should be able to support their children at sports days and other events. This kind of extreme paranoia prevents parents from seeing important moments in the lives of their children.

Financial Help for Victims of Proven Domestic Violence

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Why is this idea important?

People in violent relationships tend to financially penalised if they secure a conviction against the violent partner – this strategy aims to counteract that.

The Social Invention:
Most instances of domestic violence are those where the male is violent towards the female. It is also the case that where the male is the main financial contributor then removing him from the scene can leave the woman and her children (if there are any) financially vulnerable and in many cases, in dire straights.

There should be a requirement in cases of domestic violence that the court is given the full details of the financial circumstances of the family. The objective should be that where a conviction is secured the victim of the abuse is in no worse situation financially.
This may mean seizing assets or paying the victims out of the public purse – money that would have to be refunded by the abuser.  Legal Aid should also be an automatic right for the Victim in matters of divorce and ancillary arrangements – particularly when the Offender is in receipt of full legal aid for the same matter!! 

Scrap the Human Rights Act

This society is, as far as I'm concerned, as decent and fair as might be realistically expected without thsi legislation. It is so vague and all encompassing, that, although laudible in its aims, has become a refuge for a fair amount of people who have no qualms about violating other peoples' human rights.I am aware that the media present a skewed picture of the world at large, but stories seem to abound of gangsters, terrorists, abusers, drug dealers and their ilk insisting on the very human rights that they have deprived their victims.

Why is this idea important?

This society is, as far as I'm concerned, as decent and fair as might be realistically expected without thsi legislation. It is so vague and all encompassing, that, although laudible in its aims, has become a refuge for a fair amount of people who have no qualms about violating other peoples' human rights.I am aware that the media present a skewed picture of the world at large, but stories seem to abound of gangsters, terrorists, abusers, drug dealers and their ilk insisting on the very human rights that they have deprived their victims.

Simplify money laundering regulations

The money laundering regulations need to be simplified. As an estate agent I am required to check a client’s identity and also check the politically exposed persons list, the same client will also have to go through the same checks with their solicitor and their lender before any transaction can take place. Is it really necessary to check a person’s identity three times just to sell a house for client you may have known for 20 years?

 

Why is this idea important?

The money laundering regulations need to be simplified. As an estate agent I am required to check a client’s identity and also check the politically exposed persons list, the same client will also have to go through the same checks with their solicitor and their lender before any transaction can take place. Is it really necessary to check a person’s identity three times just to sell a house for client you may have known for 20 years?

 

CPS – review

There should not be a point system as to whether they decide there can be a trial.

A trial should be considered if there is actual physical evidence, not circumstantial.

There should be equal sexes looking at the case, to ensure a fair decision has been made.

No evidence, no trial.

Why is this idea important?

There should not be a point system as to whether they decide there can be a trial.

A trial should be considered if there is actual physical evidence, not circumstantial.

There should be equal sexes looking at the case, to ensure a fair decision has been made.

No evidence, no trial.