Charge for A&E care if a person is intoxicated.

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Why is this idea important?

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Make NHS training standard across NHS

All NHS Trusts have to train all staff in core statuatory  or mandatory H&S and other skills, this takes up to a week at induction. And then staff have to wait for other courses…

Agree a standard for all skills accross the NHS and then implement it so that the member of staff can just proceed to update rather than repeat costly and time consuming induction each time. NHS staff move around frequently in their early career. This will provide a good evidence based platform for care of our patients and free up tstaff time to do what they do best – hands on work.

Why is this idea important?

All NHS Trusts have to train all staff in core statuatory  or mandatory H&S and other skills, this takes up to a week at induction. And then staff have to wait for other courses…

Agree a standard for all skills accross the NHS and then implement it so that the member of staff can just proceed to update rather than repeat costly and time consuming induction each time. NHS staff move around frequently in their early career. This will provide a good evidence based platform for care of our patients and free up tstaff time to do what they do best – hands on work.

Amendment to the Child Abandonment Law

Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted.  I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.

Why is this idea important?

Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted.  I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.

freedom from pain.

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

Why is this idea important?

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

Reduce NHS Overheads

Encourge healthcare professionals to set up social enterprises to run their own departments, this will cut down the huge NHS overheads such as HR, managers etc.

A flattened management structure lead by clinicians would mean that services can react quickly to meet the needs of the patients.

Why is this idea important?

Encourge healthcare professionals to set up social enterprises to run their own departments, this will cut down the huge NHS overheads such as HR, managers etc.

A flattened management structure lead by clinicians would mean that services can react quickly to meet the needs of the patients.

The NHS – some savings

The idea is in three parts:

*   to reduce the number of clerical and management staff so as to provide, once again, more beds than administration people

*   to encourage people, by way of a tax break, to take up private health insurance and thus be able to pay for treatment outside ot the NHS with the concomitant huge cost savings

*   review the so-called Private Public Initiativewhereby the NHS leases back premises – an ongoing and very expensive exercise – and renegotiate the terms 

Why is this idea important?

The idea is in three parts:

*   to reduce the number of clerical and management staff so as to provide, once again, more beds than administration people

*   to encourage people, by way of a tax break, to take up private health insurance and thus be able to pay for treatment outside ot the NHS with the concomitant huge cost savings

*   review the so-called Private Public Initiativewhereby the NHS leases back premises – an ongoing and very expensive exercise – and renegotiate the terms 

The NHS and some treatments

Stop 'voluntary' treatments such as IVF on the NHS; we can't afford it.  Use the money saved for better faster response to accidents, for example – no waiting on trolleys in the corridor.

Why is this idea important?

Stop 'voluntary' treatments such as IVF on the NHS; we can't afford it.  Use the money saved for better faster response to accidents, for example – no waiting on trolleys in the corridor.

Scrap the limit of 10 minute GP appointment

Surgeries have a limit of 10 minutes per appointment which may be OK for certain cases but for other critical cases it is insufficient and may have to be extended.

This 10 minute appointment limit with GP should be ended and replaced with the GP's recommendation of length for appointment  according to the case.

Why is this idea important?

Surgeries have a limit of 10 minutes per appointment which may be OK for certain cases but for other critical cases it is insufficient and may have to be extended.

This 10 minute appointment limit with GP should be ended and replaced with the GP's recommendation of length for appointment  according to the case.

CQC FOR DENTISTS

CQC for dentistry is a cumbersome expensive idea providing very little if any benefit for patients and yet creating another unneeded level of bureacracy.

The best way to improve everything in dentistry is to let market forces decide.The public are much more credible judges of standards than any bureaucratic machine.

Why is this idea important?

CQC for dentistry is a cumbersome expensive idea providing very little if any benefit for patients and yet creating another unneeded level of bureacracy.

The best way to improve everything in dentistry is to let market forces decide.The public are much more credible judges of standards than any bureaucratic machine.

CQC-more paperwork?

I have just read in The Probe ( a dental publicaion) that CQC regulation is going to cover NHS and private practices.  I understood that registration was for private practices only. NHS practices already have strict guidelines and regulations to adhere by and we are all of course subject to GDC regulations.

NHS dental practices ae alreay battling with the increasing paperwork and red tape from PCTs.. Why do we need another regulatory body? I think we would better serve our patients by doing more dentistry and less paperwork.

How does more regulatory bodies cut unneccesary costs to the tax payer?

Why is this idea important?

I have just read in The Probe ( a dental publicaion) that CQC regulation is going to cover NHS and private practices.  I understood that registration was for private practices only. NHS practices already have strict guidelines and regulations to adhere by and we are all of course subject to GDC regulations.

NHS dental practices ae alreay battling with the increasing paperwork and red tape from PCTs.. Why do we need another regulatory body? I think we would better serve our patients by doing more dentistry and less paperwork.

How does more regulatory bodies cut unneccesary costs to the tax payer?

cqc duplication

please consider regulating only private dental practices as this was the original brief and not those who predominantly loyal to the NHS. We have enough to cope ref regulation as it is.

Why is this idea important?

please consider regulating only private dental practices as this was the original brief and not those who predominantly loyal to the NHS. We have enough to cope ref regulation as it is.

State benefit card

We are continually told (all governments) that benefit cheats will be caught, that welfare benefits will be targeted to those that need it, that new immigrants will not queue jump etc etc. I think we have all now got to the point where we know that despite the cuts planned by the present coalition that it wont really change.

I think its now time for a radical rethink of how the money collected by government with the idea of redistributing back through benefits to those that need it.

My proposal is that a card, like a credit card or the current national insurance card be given to everyone in the U.K. who would be eligible. This card allows the holder to benefit from the range of government schemes including housing, pension, NHS etc. At a stroke that wipes out anyone who is here and who shouldnt be as they will not be able to claim. If they want to benefit then they join by paying taxes like the rest of us.

Why is this idea important?

We are continually told (all governments) that benefit cheats will be caught, that welfare benefits will be targeted to those that need it, that new immigrants will not queue jump etc etc. I think we have all now got to the point where we know that despite the cuts planned by the present coalition that it wont really change.

I think its now time for a radical rethink of how the money collected by government with the idea of redistributing back through benefits to those that need it.

My proposal is that a card, like a credit card or the current national insurance card be given to everyone in the U.K. who would be eligible. This card allows the holder to benefit from the range of government schemes including housing, pension, NHS etc. At a stroke that wipes out anyone who is here and who shouldnt be as they will not be able to claim. If they want to benefit then they join by paying taxes like the rest of us.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Keep Civil Servant Details Private

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Why is this idea important?

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Option for dentists to opt out of NHS

Please repeal whatever law allowed dentists to opt out of the NHS. In Aylesbury there is just ONE NHS dentist and every other practice has given up NHS work in favour of more lucrative private dentistry. I suspect that this is true across the whole of Buckinghamshire. 

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal whatever law allowed dentists to opt out of the NHS. In Aylesbury there is just ONE NHS dentist and every other practice has given up NHS work in favour of more lucrative private dentistry. I suspect that this is true across the whole of Buckinghamshire. 

Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure of the war on drugs?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

Why is this idea important?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

Make Hospital Telephone Numbers Available to the Public and Stop Unneccessary 999 Calls

Hospital Telephone Switchboard numbers should be made available in an online directory so that members of the public can quickly obtain the right level of advice for more minor queries without having to call 999.

The NHS choices website contains no lists of treatments/departments or telephone numbers. Being heavily pregnant and with a potential problem I was advised to contact my local midwife centre/hospital. However, I was amazed to find that no telephone numbers were available to the public. In desperation I called NHS Direct to see if they could help. They informed me that they were unable to give out hospital telephone switchboard numbers because to do so would be an infringement of the Data Protection Act!!!! They advised me to call my Dr and see if they could provide me with a telephone number instead, or alternatively make my way to the hospital and show up in person myself. What a waste of time for all concerned. I have spoken to other people that I know and they have come up against the same problems, some of whom resorted to calling 999 in the absence of other contact numbers. I have never come across such a ludicrous excuse for not being able to give out telephone numbers of public services to the public!! Particularly over something so important!! Is it any wonder that 999 calls are misused and resources wasted !

Why is this idea important?

Hospital Telephone Switchboard numbers should be made available in an online directory so that members of the public can quickly obtain the right level of advice for more minor queries without having to call 999.

The NHS choices website contains no lists of treatments/departments or telephone numbers. Being heavily pregnant and with a potential problem I was advised to contact my local midwife centre/hospital. However, I was amazed to find that no telephone numbers were available to the public. In desperation I called NHS Direct to see if they could help. They informed me that they were unable to give out hospital telephone switchboard numbers because to do so would be an infringement of the Data Protection Act!!!! They advised me to call my Dr and see if they could provide me with a telephone number instead, or alternatively make my way to the hospital and show up in person myself. What a waste of time for all concerned. I have spoken to other people that I know and they have come up against the same problems, some of whom resorted to calling 999 in the absence of other contact numbers. I have never come across such a ludicrous excuse for not being able to give out telephone numbers of public services to the public!! Particularly over something so important!! Is it any wonder that 999 calls are misused and resources wasted !

Medical records

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Why is this idea important?

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

The Rational Triumvirate! Regulate – Educate – Revenue Generate (Legalise Cannabis/NHS Heroin/Decriminalised Possession of All Drugs)

The pursuit of liberty, deficit reduction and a safer society along the way…

Cannabis represents a massive commercial opportunity that up to now has only been available to organised crime. The jobs and tax revenues that would stem from a cafe culture would be a welcome addition to the legal economy, and by definition would be taking money and jobs from the criminal underworld.

Heroin is the most damaging of the illegal drugs. Registering addicts and giving them free heroin in clinics along with clean needles, safe doses and therapy, offers the best value for all of society. A vast amount of the theft and burglary in this country is due to acquisitive crime to fund a heroin addiction. This would virtually disappear with NHS heroin clinics.

We are currently in control (a bit) of the largest heroin producing nation in the world. Perhaps us purchasing the good from the farmers rather than the war lords might go some way to creating some jobs and stability in Afghanistan. There is also a global shortage of medical morphine which would represent a decent export for the country.

Decriminalising possession for personal use of all illegal drugs is simply an attempt to reduce our prison population and free the police from the burden of dealing with such a prevalent, yet victimless crime. It is a liberal and realistic approach to a problem that is not going to go away.

Why is this idea important?

The pursuit of liberty, deficit reduction and a safer society along the way…

Cannabis represents a massive commercial opportunity that up to now has only been available to organised crime. The jobs and tax revenues that would stem from a cafe culture would be a welcome addition to the legal economy, and by definition would be taking money and jobs from the criminal underworld.

Heroin is the most damaging of the illegal drugs. Registering addicts and giving them free heroin in clinics along with clean needles, safe doses and therapy, offers the best value for all of society. A vast amount of the theft and burglary in this country is due to acquisitive crime to fund a heroin addiction. This would virtually disappear with NHS heroin clinics.

We are currently in control (a bit) of the largest heroin producing nation in the world. Perhaps us purchasing the good from the farmers rather than the war lords might go some way to creating some jobs and stability in Afghanistan. There is also a global shortage of medical morphine which would represent a decent export for the country.

Decriminalising possession for personal use of all illegal drugs is simply an attempt to reduce our prison population and free the police from the burden of dealing with such a prevalent, yet victimless crime. It is a liberal and realistic approach to a problem that is not going to go away.

Follow through on repealing 08 Numbers used by GP Practices

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.

Why is this idea important?

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.