repeal the licencing act

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.

The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.

The Medway Act 2001. discriminates against medway residents.

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Repeal/Amendment to the Smoking Ban

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

Why is this idea important?

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

re: smoking in public houses

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Why is this idea important?

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Repeal or amend the smoking ban

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Why is this idea important?

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Let me decide how hot I want my bath!

Is it any business of the state how hot I like my bath water? Apparently yes! The last government forced through, without any publicity or consultation with the general public, a regulation making it a criminal offence to have a bath hotter than 48 degrees. How many people knew that? Since 6th April it has been illegal for anyone to sell or supply a bath or bath taps that would supply water hotter than a temperature decided by a government minister! At a stroke having separate 'hot' and 'cold' taps on new baths has been made a crime. If I want my bath hotter than the government thinks is adequate I'm not allowed one – 'government knows what's best for you'. Unbelievable! Can't we even be trusted to run a bath now without nanny state looking over our shoulder and lecturing us? "Elf 'n' Safety" was blamed, as usual – the justification apparently was that someone might drop a baby in a hot bath. Can't anyone be empowered to bathe their own children any longer without state supervision??? Ridiculous, this absurd law should be repealed.

The law was brought in by an obscure amendment to Part G of the Building Regulations and came into effect on 6 April 2010 requiring all baths to have thermostatic mixing valves [TMV] restricting bath water to a temperature decided in Whitehall.

Why is this idea important?

Is it any business of the state how hot I like my bath water? Apparently yes! The last government forced through, without any publicity or consultation with the general public, a regulation making it a criminal offence to have a bath hotter than 48 degrees. How many people knew that? Since 6th April it has been illegal for anyone to sell or supply a bath or bath taps that would supply water hotter than a temperature decided by a government minister! At a stroke having separate 'hot' and 'cold' taps on new baths has been made a crime. If I want my bath hotter than the government thinks is adequate I'm not allowed one – 'government knows what's best for you'. Unbelievable! Can't we even be trusted to run a bath now without nanny state looking over our shoulder and lecturing us? "Elf 'n' Safety" was blamed, as usual – the justification apparently was that someone might drop a baby in a hot bath. Can't anyone be empowered to bathe their own children any longer without state supervision??? Ridiculous, this absurd law should be repealed.

The law was brought in by an obscure amendment to Part G of the Building Regulations and came into effect on 6 April 2010 requiring all baths to have thermostatic mixing valves [TMV] restricting bath water to a temperature decided in Whitehall.

Allow light switches and electricity plugs in the bathroom

Today, you are not allowed to have electricity (except safe plugs) or light switches in bathrooms. Houses either have long strings to turn on lights or have to keep switches outside the bathroom. You should be allowed to have electricity in the bathroom so you can plug in electric shavers and toothbrushes, and electric switches should be allowed inside the bathroom.

Why is this idea important?

Today, you are not allowed to have electricity (except safe plugs) or light switches in bathrooms. Houses either have long strings to turn on lights or have to keep switches outside the bathroom. You should be allowed to have electricity in the bathroom so you can plug in electric shavers and toothbrushes, and electric switches should be allowed inside the bathroom.

Restrict the irresponsible power wielded by C.M.E.C. (formerly C.S.A.)

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Why is this idea important?

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Allow Own Electrical DIY

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

Why is this idea important?

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

Stop Painting Roads

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Why is this idea important?

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Get rid of the requirement for volume limiters on MP3/4 players.

I think the requirement for volume limitation upon mp3/4 players and their manufacturers should be dropped, simple as that, and I do not mean just so-called volume limiters that can be turned off from within the player's menu system either. I mean the limiters that are buried deep within the players' operating systems which consumers have no access to, and thus, no control over.

Why is this idea important?

I think the requirement for volume limitation upon mp3/4 players and their manufacturers should be dropped, simple as that, and I do not mean just so-called volume limiters that can be turned off from within the player's menu system either. I mean the limiters that are buried deep within the players' operating systems which consumers have no access to, and thus, no control over.

Repeal the legislation that requires no-smoking signs to be displayed at entrance to all public venues

I agree with the law that bans smoking in public places. BUT  please repeal the law that requires a non-smoking sign to be displayed at the entrance to all public venues.

Why is this idea important?

I agree with the law that bans smoking in public places. BUT  please repeal the law that requires a non-smoking sign to be displayed at the entrance to all public venues.

Stop racism against the ethnic English

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Why is this idea important?

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Smoking Ban – signage requirements

Given the blanket smoking ban imposed by the last Government,  why are signs needed on every premises saying that smoking is banned. As long as the ban exists, it is obvious that smoking is not allowed inside the premises.

 

Before the ban, you did not see "No smoking" signs at entrances to churches, schools etc, it was obviousl to everyone that it was not allowed. It is just another example of the nanny state.

Why is this idea important?

Given the blanket smoking ban imposed by the last Government,  why are signs needed on every premises saying that smoking is banned. As long as the ban exists, it is obvious that smoking is not allowed inside the premises.

 

Before the ban, you did not see "No smoking" signs at entrances to churches, schools etc, it was obviousl to everyone that it was not allowed. It is just another example of the nanny state.

Lets lift the smoking ban it’s killing England

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Why is this idea important?

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Switchblades and gravity knives

Due to tabloid paper hysteria and sinister portrails in 1950s hollywood movies, several highly functional tools were banned from sale and import.

Switchblades (flick knives) are folding knives simply designed to be opened with one hand at  the push of a button, leaving the other free. Historically these knives were marketed for fisherman working on rough seas, or ladies so as not to break a finger nail when opening a manual folding knife.

Gravity knives were notoriously designed for parachuters to be able to quickly cut themselves free and avoid dangers associated with landing on a fixed blade knife. These were placed in the same Act.

 

Repeal the following:

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988

Why is this idea important?

Due to tabloid paper hysteria and sinister portrails in 1950s hollywood movies, several highly functional tools were banned from sale and import.

Switchblades (flick knives) are folding knives simply designed to be opened with one hand at  the push of a button, leaving the other free. Historically these knives were marketed for fisherman working on rough seas, or ladies so as not to break a finger nail when opening a manual folding knife.

Gravity knives were notoriously designed for parachuters to be able to quickly cut themselves free and avoid dangers associated with landing on a fixed blade knife. These were placed in the same Act.

 

Repeal the following:

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988

Rules for regulation of Cannabis Cultivation for personal use by adults in private

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Why is this idea important?

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Repeal Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 – Cut all public funding to ASH etc

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

Why is this idea important?

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

let milk be milk – repealing pasteurisation laws

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Why is this idea important?

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Allow 1 parent to take 2 kids swimming. Allow under 18s to tahe kids swimming

Some local councils, sensibly, allow PARENTS to make the decision about whether or not they can safely manage 2 children in the pool. Parents judge this based on age of children (babies are easier!) depth of pool, obedience of children to parent rules – 'don't go out of your depth' – and swimming ability of child. However some pools decide this all for parents and have a blanket ban on more than 1 child under 5, or 6 or whatever going in with a parent. As a mother of twins this effectively meant that I could not take them swimming in 1 area – though luckily another pool nearby let me in.

Pools have lifeguards and any parent that is NOT looking after a child/children and placing them at risk can be asked to supervise more closely or leave. So why penalise the vast majority of sensible mums and dads by deciding for us what we can do.

Also our local pool says you have to be 18 to take kids swimming – which means 16/17 year old mothers can't take their own baby in. Some older sibling are perfectly sensible and parents should be allowed to decide – or at the very least the limit should be dropped to 16 which is an age where you can get married, have kids, and have a job. But not take someone swimming!

Why is this idea important?

Some local councils, sensibly, allow PARENTS to make the decision about whether or not they can safely manage 2 children in the pool. Parents judge this based on age of children (babies are easier!) depth of pool, obedience of children to parent rules – 'don't go out of your depth' – and swimming ability of child. However some pools decide this all for parents and have a blanket ban on more than 1 child under 5, or 6 or whatever going in with a parent. As a mother of twins this effectively meant that I could not take them swimming in 1 area – though luckily another pool nearby let me in.

Pools have lifeguards and any parent that is NOT looking after a child/children and placing them at risk can be asked to supervise more closely or leave. So why penalise the vast majority of sensible mums and dads by deciding for us what we can do.

Also our local pool says you have to be 18 to take kids swimming – which means 16/17 year old mothers can't take their own baby in. Some older sibling are perfectly sensible and parents should be allowed to decide – or at the very least the limit should be dropped to 16 which is an age where you can get married, have kids, and have a job. But not take someone swimming!

Rationalising Road and Street Signs, and Traffic Lights

Ove recent years, the number and size of road and street signs has mushroomed to the point where we are now presented with a visual blitz of messages all competing for our attention.

Most of them are there for ostensibly safety reasons, but the sheer number means that the really important messages get lost in a visual mess of competing signs.

This mess of signage also greatly degrades the appearnce of many of our towns.

We need to revise whatever regulations or standards govern the placement of signs, and start to eliminate those signs which add little value, leaving only that that are vital for safety or direction-giving.

For example, at a large roundabout near me, at the junction of the A10 and the A14, for each stram of traffic joining the roundabout there are an amazing SIX sets of IDENTICAL lights – two sets on different levels on eacvh of three poles; one on each side of the road, and one on the roundabout! A single set on the roundabout is quite sufficient.

Why is this idea important?

Ove recent years, the number and size of road and street signs has mushroomed to the point where we are now presented with a visual blitz of messages all competing for our attention.

Most of them are there for ostensibly safety reasons, but the sheer number means that the really important messages get lost in a visual mess of competing signs.

This mess of signage also greatly degrades the appearnce of many of our towns.

We need to revise whatever regulations or standards govern the placement of signs, and start to eliminate those signs which add little value, leaving only that that are vital for safety or direction-giving.

For example, at a large roundabout near me, at the junction of the A10 and the A14, for each stram of traffic joining the roundabout there are an amazing SIX sets of IDENTICAL lights – two sets on different levels on eacvh of three poles; one on each side of the road, and one on the roundabout! A single set on the roundabout is quite sufficient.