Rethink the rod licence

At the moment you require a rod licence to fish on private land.

I think it's somewhat counter-intuitive that someone can buy land, fill it with water, stock it with fish, look after those fish but then have to pay a rod licence to the environment agency if they or a member of their club fish in it.

At the end of the day I don't think anyone should be fined £2500 and treated like a criminal if they are fishing on stillwaters on private land without a licence.

I believe, as do many others, that the rod licence should be limited to public stillwaters, flowing waterways and canals.
 

Why is this idea important?

At the moment you require a rod licence to fish on private land.

I think it's somewhat counter-intuitive that someone can buy land, fill it with water, stock it with fish, look after those fish but then have to pay a rod licence to the environment agency if they or a member of their club fish in it.

At the end of the day I don't think anyone should be fined £2500 and treated like a criminal if they are fishing on stillwaters on private land without a licence.

I believe, as do many others, that the rod licence should be limited to public stillwaters, flowing waterways and canals.
 

Allow as many people as they want to share a dwelling without planning consent or license

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Remove notification, compliance and licensing for landlords

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Scrap the compulsory BBC tax (licence fee)

At a time when essential public services are being taxed, there can surely be no justification for continuation of compulsory public funding for an organisation that has equivalents, that would be more than adequate if the BBC was to be scrapped in its present form. If people had the choice whether to  use the BBC or not, I'm sure that many of us wouldn't think that the BBC represented value for money as individual consumers. If people want to use the BBC, how about a "pay as you go" system?

Why is this idea important?

At a time when essential public services are being taxed, there can surely be no justification for continuation of compulsory public funding for an organisation that has equivalents, that would be more than adequate if the BBC was to be scrapped in its present form. If people had the choice whether to  use the BBC or not, I'm sure that many of us wouldn't think that the BBC represented value for money as individual consumers. If people want to use the BBC, how about a "pay as you go" system?

Stop snooping and criminalising people for not having a TV license fee

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Reduce Oppressive Licensing Act 2003

The Licensing Act 2003 requires all events involving music or sale of alcohol to have a licence – the requirements are oppressive for small fundraising events organised by Charities or other non-commercial organisations.  As most do not have a Personal Licence holder or the premises (such as village halls, churches) do not have Premises Licences the organisers are required to complete in triplicate a 10 page form, most of which is irrelevant.  This form must be submitted to the local authority & police for vetting on each occasion at a cost of £21 a time.  

This requirement costs my charity a significant proportion of the funds raised by such events and, as a licence has never been refused to me, is a pointless bureacratic exercise.  Obtaining a Personal Licence requires attendance at a course typically costing £300 covering far more than the requirements for the small events I organise and as the premises we use (WI Hall, church) do not Have Premises Licences would still require the £21 redundant form to be completed and submitted for approval prior to the event.

The requirement could be simplified and made less onerous by allowing an individual organising such non-commercial events to be vetted once and subsequently allowed to hold, say, 5 events per annum simply by sending the local authority a one page form (or even simpler, holding a log record of events).  This would almost be reverting to the practice prior to John Prescott's oppresive law when individual licence holders could apply for a one year licence allowing a number of events per annum. 

Why is this idea important?

The Licensing Act 2003 requires all events involving music or sale of alcohol to have a licence – the requirements are oppressive for small fundraising events organised by Charities or other non-commercial organisations.  As most do not have a Personal Licence holder or the premises (such as village halls, churches) do not have Premises Licences the organisers are required to complete in triplicate a 10 page form, most of which is irrelevant.  This form must be submitted to the local authority & police for vetting on each occasion at a cost of £21 a time.  

This requirement costs my charity a significant proportion of the funds raised by such events and, as a licence has never been refused to me, is a pointless bureacratic exercise.  Obtaining a Personal Licence requires attendance at a course typically costing £300 covering far more than the requirements for the small events I organise and as the premises we use (WI Hall, church) do not Have Premises Licences would still require the £21 redundant form to be completed and submitted for approval prior to the event.

The requirement could be simplified and made less onerous by allowing an individual organising such non-commercial events to be vetted once and subsequently allowed to hold, say, 5 events per annum simply by sending the local authority a one page form (or even simpler, holding a log record of events).  This would almost be reverting to the practice prior to John Prescott's oppresive law when individual licence holders could apply for a one year licence allowing a number of events per annum. 

Magistrates to license pubs not councils

As the last government did nothing to help Pubs and there is no glimmer of this one doing anything could we please revert back to the Magistrates Courts for licence extensions. We use to be able to go to court and get a licence for the next day but since it was Blairised we now have to give 10 working days notice which means we loose even more business. I note that licenses have just been issued to some pouns shops to sell beer and wine for 1.00 a pint, thats going to be helpful to pubs and all the associated crime that goes with cheap alcohol
 

Why is this idea important?

As the last government did nothing to help Pubs and there is no glimmer of this one doing anything could we please revert back to the Magistrates Courts for licence extensions. We use to be able to go to court and get a licence for the next day but since it was Blairised we now have to give 10 working days notice which means we loose even more business. I note that licenses have just been issued to some pouns shops to sell beer and wine for 1.00 a pint, thats going to be helpful to pubs and all the associated crime that goes with cheap alcohol
 

Scrap the BBC licence fee

Scrap the licence fee because it is an unnecessary form of tax and it is not good value for money. The organisation has got too big and beyond the scope it was intended. The organisation is very left wing and continues news reporting with a heavy Labour bias contrary to its broadcasting policy. The fee should be scraped or severely reduced. BBC recently overspent £100 million pounds on a build and no one was held to account. If it can waste money on this scale it can afford to reduce the licence fee or seek commercial funding. The taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to fund bias broadcasting and act as a political wing of the Labour Party.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the licence fee because it is an unnecessary form of tax and it is not good value for money. The organisation has got too big and beyond the scope it was intended. The organisation is very left wing and continues news reporting with a heavy Labour bias contrary to its broadcasting policy. The fee should be scraped or severely reduced. BBC recently overspent £100 million pounds on a build and no one was held to account. If it can waste money on this scale it can afford to reduce the licence fee or seek commercial funding. The taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to fund bias broadcasting and act as a political wing of the Labour Party.

ALLOW SOFTWARE LICENSES TO BE TRANSFERRABLE

If I buy a book, I buy paper, cardboard and ink plus a licence to read it an unlimited number of times. When I don't want it any more I can sell it on an auction website and transfer the licence.

When I buy software I cannot transfer it in the same way and many times I cannot even transfer it to other computers that I own.

The UK law should be changed to allow software licences to be transferrable – just like books! 

Why is this idea important?

If I buy a book, I buy paper, cardboard and ink plus a licence to read it an unlimited number of times. When I don't want it any more I can sell it on an auction website and transfer the licence.

When I buy software I cannot transfer it in the same way and many times I cannot even transfer it to other computers that I own.

The UK law should be changed to allow software licences to be transferrable – just like books!