Legalise sex with animals

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

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I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.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I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Take the profit out of drugs and legalise them all

Drugs persist as problem because it’s possible for criminals to make a profit out of pushing them. As they are controlled by criminals, the price is such that addicts need to commit crimes to feed their habit. Prohibition is not working and hasn’t worked since the laws were passed. Each year the misery crated rough drug trafficking and misuse increases. I was once told only an idiot keeps doing the same ing in the expectation of a different result so why, other than for political gain, do ministers continue with the same sad policies. legalise all drugs and save the costs of dragging addicts through the criminal justice system, pursuing criminals, policing our borders and responding to crimes such as muggings, burglary, prostitution all related to drugs. Let’s save all this money and invest a fraction back into education to prevent misuse in the first place. For those still intent on taking them, make them free thus ensuring the quality, and sterility of related equipment. Offer rehabilitation to all those in need and finally full life tariffs to anyone who is still determined to distribute without any possibility of reduction of sentence. Once the profit is out of drugs ere will be a much reduced incentive for criminals to encourage addiction- no more pushers at the playground gates or in the clubs. Legitimate free supply means legitimate business for the poppy growers in Afghanistan so they won’t be lining the pockets of the Taliban.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs persist as problem because it’s possible for criminals to make a profit out of pushing them. As they are controlled by criminals, the price is such that addicts need to commit crimes to feed their habit. Prohibition is not working and hasn’t worked since the laws were passed. Each year the misery crated rough drug trafficking and misuse increases. I was once told only an idiot keeps doing the same ing in the expectation of a different result so why, other than for political gain, do ministers continue with the same sad policies. legalise all drugs and save the costs of dragging addicts through the criminal justice system, pursuing criminals, policing our borders and responding to crimes such as muggings, burglary, prostitution all related to drugs. Let’s save all this money and invest a fraction back into education to prevent misuse in the first place. For those still intent on taking them, make them free thus ensuring the quality, and sterility of related equipment. Offer rehabilitation to all those in need and finally full life tariffs to anyone who is still determined to distribute without any possibility of reduction of sentence. Once the profit is out of drugs ere will be a much reduced incentive for criminals to encourage addiction- no more pushers at the playground gates or in the clubs. Legitimate free supply means legitimate business for the poppy growers in Afghanistan so they won’t be lining the pockets of the Taliban.

Abolish every single regulation that exists.

Abolish every single regulation that exists. Here are just a few examples of the good things that abolishing regulations can do:

Abolish planning permission and state-controlled town planning

Town planning, as well as forcing businesses to move away from where they can best serve their customers, also raises the cost of housing. Redrow—a construction company—recently revealed that they spend more on planning permission than they do on bricks. Abolishing it might help us to create some housing that is actually affordable.

Abolishing the minimum wage

The majority of people do not have a problem with the minimum wage. However, I do. Raising the cost of labour is a burden on employers, many of whom are not big corporate enterprises "exploiting" poor people, but small businesses (the ones who all politicians claim to support). Introducing or increasing the minimum wage hurts people whose labour is worth less than what the minimum wage is. For an example, an employer wants to hire ten people at £2.50 an hour each; they cannot do that if there is a minimum wage of £5 an hour. Instead of hiring ten people, they will hire five. There is ample evidence to suggest that minimum wages hurt the poor. Youth unemployment is usually reported as higher than general unemployment. Why could this be? The answer is that young people have very few skills which justify a high wage. Because the law restricts young people from getting jobs at wages which justify their skills, they are priced out of the labour market. This is ethically wrong. If minimum wages destroy jobs, then so-called "living wages" are absolute destroyers of jobs. If you want unemployment to be low, abolish this regulation, the burdens of which fall on those who it is meant to help.

Abolishing anti-discrimination regulation

It sounds like such a good idea, doesn't it? Without it, blacks, Jews and the Irish wouldn't be allowed to enter any shop, because people are naturally racist and the state must use its force to stop this discrimination, right?

Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws are not necessary. Every time a business denies blacks, or Muslims, or any other minority group access to its services, it is only harming itself. Turning away customers who are willing to pay for their services means less money for the shopkeeper, or the baker, the butcher or greengrocer, or any businessman you can think of. This is called the free market's "racist fee". A racist shopkeeper who does not allow Muslims into his shop will lose out on the money those Muslims will over him.

Should we allow people the right to deny Muslims to their shops? Absolutely. Their business belongs to them and them only. They have the right to freedom of association – they must allow whomever they want (or don't want) onto (or off) their property. As I have mentioned before, there is a "racist fee" in the free market for those who discriminate. Bigots go bust.

The real racists are trade unions and governments. It was government that enforced segregation and propped up slavery. It was the trade unions who were passionately opposed to the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931, with president of the American Federation of Labour saying that "coloured labour is being sought to demoralize wage rates".

Why is this idea important?

Abolish every single regulation that exists. Here are just a few examples of the good things that abolishing regulations can do:

Abolish planning permission and state-controlled town planning

Town planning, as well as forcing businesses to move away from where they can best serve their customers, also raises the cost of housing. Redrow—a construction company—recently revealed that they spend more on planning permission than they do on bricks. Abolishing it might help us to create some housing that is actually affordable.

Abolishing the minimum wage

The majority of people do not have a problem with the minimum wage. However, I do. Raising the cost of labour is a burden on employers, many of whom are not big corporate enterprises "exploiting" poor people, but small businesses (the ones who all politicians claim to support). Introducing or increasing the minimum wage hurts people whose labour is worth less than what the minimum wage is. For an example, an employer wants to hire ten people at £2.50 an hour each; they cannot do that if there is a minimum wage of £5 an hour. Instead of hiring ten people, they will hire five. There is ample evidence to suggest that minimum wages hurt the poor. Youth unemployment is usually reported as higher than general unemployment. Why could this be? The answer is that young people have very few skills which justify a high wage. Because the law restricts young people from getting jobs at wages which justify their skills, they are priced out of the labour market. This is ethically wrong. If minimum wages destroy jobs, then so-called "living wages" are absolute destroyers of jobs. If you want unemployment to be low, abolish this regulation, the burdens of which fall on those who it is meant to help.

Abolishing anti-discrimination regulation

It sounds like such a good idea, doesn't it? Without it, blacks, Jews and the Irish wouldn't be allowed to enter any shop, because people are naturally racist and the state must use its force to stop this discrimination, right?

Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws are not necessary. Every time a business denies blacks, or Muslims, or any other minority group access to its services, it is only harming itself. Turning away customers who are willing to pay for their services means less money for the shopkeeper, or the baker, the butcher or greengrocer, or any businessman you can think of. This is called the free market's "racist fee". A racist shopkeeper who does not allow Muslims into his shop will lose out on the money those Muslims will over him.

Should we allow people the right to deny Muslims to their shops? Absolutely. Their business belongs to them and them only. They have the right to freedom of association – they must allow whomever they want (or don't want) onto (or off) their property. As I have mentioned before, there is a "racist fee" in the free market for those who discriminate. Bigots go bust.

The real racists are trade unions and governments. It was government that enforced segregation and propped up slavery. It was the trade unions who were passionately opposed to the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931, with president of the American Federation of Labour saying that "coloured labour is being sought to demoralize wage rates".

Legalise Ecstasy

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Why is this idea important?

I think Ecstasy should be legal. It has been in regular use in this country for a number of years and seems to have had no ill effects. It could be manufactured and sold through pharmacies.

Serious about crime? Then de-criminalise drugs!

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

OPTING OUT OF THE NHS MEDICAL RECORDS DATABASE

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.

Why is this idea important?

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.