Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

The purchase of politics

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Repeal Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.