Make the photo on the driving licence optional

For decades Britains drove safely and without issue on their paper non-photo driving licences. It is my understanding that he photograph was added in the last few years as a way of "standardising" driving licences across the EU. But for the purposes of motoring in the UK, a photo was not considered necessary and its enactment was not related to road safety.

My proposal is to make the photo optional. Only drivers who desire the convenience of the photo may opt to have it included on their plastic licence document. In addition, drivers who do opt for the photo should be able to choose whether or not their photograph is permanently archived in the DVLA database.

Why is this idea important?

For decades Britains drove safely and without issue on their paper non-photo driving licences. It is my understanding that he photograph was added in the last few years as a way of "standardising" driving licences across the EU. But for the purposes of motoring in the UK, a photo was not considered necessary and its enactment was not related to road safety.

My proposal is to make the photo optional. Only drivers who desire the convenience of the photo may opt to have it included on their plastic licence document. In addition, drivers who do opt for the photo should be able to choose whether or not their photograph is permanently archived in the DVLA database.

Repeal or restrict the RIP act.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act erodes our civil liberties and can be used by over 750 public bodies in the United Kingdom.  This an unneeded and obscene and leads to a multitude of people able to invade the privacy of thousands of citizens.

Why is this idea important?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act erodes our civil liberties and can be used by over 750 public bodies in the United Kingdom.  This an unneeded and obscene and leads to a multitude of people able to invade the privacy of thousands of citizens.

Cancel 2011 Census

Over recent years the census has grown froma a failry simple head count into a grossly expensive and intrusive multi page form that demands we surrender intimate details of our lives or face criminal prosecution.

There is nothing it provides that could not be garnered with equivelant  accuracy through modern polling methods so in straightened times it should be cancelled while the whole debacle is re thought. I'm sure there will be plenty enough information floating around in dusty internet archives to keep the family historians content in a hundred years.

Why is this idea important?

Over recent years the census has grown froma a failry simple head count into a grossly expensive and intrusive multi page form that demands we surrender intimate details of our lives or face criminal prosecution.

There is nothing it provides that could not be garnered with equivelant  accuracy through modern polling methods so in straightened times it should be cancelled while the whole debacle is re thought. I'm sure there will be plenty enough information floating around in dusty internet archives to keep the family historians content in a hundred years.

Restore law that councils apply for planning permission when installing CCTV cameras

Make it a legal requirement that Councils must apply and have an open debate with the public before installing street or any council operated CCTV cameras.

Why is this idea important?

Make it a legal requirement that Councils must apply and have an open debate with the public before installing street or any council operated CCTV cameras.

Make our identity a legal private property

The technology exists to allow all of us to retain, held in secure privately owned "identity banks" who we contract with privately, our key private identity details.  Name, age, sex, address. These banks would be allowed in law to do only one thing – protect the privacy of our identity – with severe fines payable to us if they release our details without our knowledge.

It should then be the law that no organisation, including the government, should be able to make any use of our personal details without flagging this up with our guardian bank and receiving our permission to use those details.  We would all obtain a log of all organisations who were interested in us or contacting us.

We would be free to contract in or out of our visibility to commercial organisations. It might be part of the contract with your electricity company that they were allowed to know who you were to supply you with power – fair enough, but we could set the extent of this "knowing" about us.  Equally, you might want to put a block on the credit card companies making you new offers.

Government, especially, would have to log all its "dealings" that required it to know or use our identity details.  We'd see what they were doing. 

This law puts the power over our identity where it belongs – with each of us.

 

Why is this idea important?

The technology exists to allow all of us to retain, held in secure privately owned "identity banks" who we contract with privately, our key private identity details.  Name, age, sex, address. These banks would be allowed in law to do only one thing – protect the privacy of our identity – with severe fines payable to us if they release our details without our knowledge.

It should then be the law that no organisation, including the government, should be able to make any use of our personal details without flagging this up with our guardian bank and receiving our permission to use those details.  We would all obtain a log of all organisations who were interested in us or contacting us.

We would be free to contract in or out of our visibility to commercial organisations. It might be part of the contract with your electricity company that they were allowed to know who you were to supply you with power – fair enough, but we could set the extent of this "knowing" about us.  Equally, you might want to put a block on the credit card companies making you new offers.

Government, especially, would have to log all its "dealings" that required it to know or use our identity details.  We'd see what they were doing. 

This law puts the power over our identity where it belongs – with each of us.

 

Scrap NETCU, NDET, NCDE and NPOIU

These organisations (NETCU, NDET, NCDE and NPOIU) were all set up within the police service as a result of pharmaceutical industry lobbying, with the original intention of countering one animal rights group. They succeeded in this (at a cost of millions to the tax payer), and the people they were after are all now in jail.

However, these units – who's duties could easily be combined – continue to exist and receive substantive funding. As they no longer have their reason d'etre, they are, to all intents and purposes, creating work for themselves in order to justify their continued existence.

Virtually every protest that takes place in this country now has several NPOIU (or FIT) officers photographing EVERY attendee. Usually details are taken (often illegally), and this information is passed onto NDET, who attempt to create prosecutions (the vast majority of which are of the sort outlined above, which inevitably fail, ensuring NDET look important and retain funding at colossal expenditure, whilst not actually doing anything to curb crime). The information is also passed to NETCU who liaise with companies being protested against and advise them on getting injunction against (predominantly peaceful) protesters, and ways to deal with protests etc… all of which the companies should be researching themselves, but which is now funded by the tax payer.

It should be down to local police to facilitate protests, and to 'deal with' any trouble makers. People should feel they have the right to protest without being put on a Government list (as demonstrated in the recent case of the entirely peaceful, elderly painter who attends protests to paint the scene and managed to acquire his shockingly in depth police file).

Why is this idea important?

These organisations (NETCU, NDET, NCDE and NPOIU) were all set up within the police service as a result of pharmaceutical industry lobbying, with the original intention of countering one animal rights group. They succeeded in this (at a cost of millions to the tax payer), and the people they were after are all now in jail.

However, these units – who's duties could easily be combined – continue to exist and receive substantive funding. As they no longer have their reason d'etre, they are, to all intents and purposes, creating work for themselves in order to justify their continued existence.

Virtually every protest that takes place in this country now has several NPOIU (or FIT) officers photographing EVERY attendee. Usually details are taken (often illegally), and this information is passed onto NDET, who attempt to create prosecutions (the vast majority of which are of the sort outlined above, which inevitably fail, ensuring NDET look important and retain funding at colossal expenditure, whilst not actually doing anything to curb crime). The information is also passed to NETCU who liaise with companies being protested against and advise them on getting injunction against (predominantly peaceful) protesters, and ways to deal with protests etc… all of which the companies should be researching themselves, but which is now funded by the tax payer.

It should be down to local police to facilitate protests, and to 'deal with' any trouble makers. People should feel they have the right to protest without being put on a Government list (as demonstrated in the recent case of the entirely peaceful, elderly painter who attends protests to paint the scene and managed to acquire his shockingly in depth police file).

Data protection – outlaw the trading of personal data for gain

The sale of personal data has become commonplace in recent times and that data is being used (abused) by those who are buying and those who are selling. As a result, there is a swingeing increase in those who are greatly motivated by greed to exploit the fact that, inadvertently or otherwise, they are in possession of information that could be traded.

My name, my address and any other detail pertinent to me is pertinent to me alone. If that information is of any consequence to any other person – whether for profit or not – it is not to be traded under any circumstances.

One classic example of traded data relates to circumstances where a civil liability might be incurred, e.g. a motor accident. There is scarcely any physical damage to the vehicles involved and yet, 'claims farmers', unscrupulous solicitors, accident management companies, vehicle repairers, engineers or anybody involved in the process will have personal details of the parties involved in the accident; details which have a trading value to others who can exploit the civil litigation system – not in the name of justice and fair play but in the name of personal greed with little regard for the possible consequences of their activity. Watch TV during any advertisement break and bear witness to a myriad of traders (mostly illegitimate) who are seeking to make money from the 'victims' of the accident most of whom never suffered injury in the first instance but who are ready and willing to perjure themselves for the promise of a crock of gold.

Outlaw the trading of personal data and rid the country of a litigious nation whose primary motivation in life is "Something for nothing" 

Why is this idea important?

The sale of personal data has become commonplace in recent times and that data is being used (abused) by those who are buying and those who are selling. As a result, there is a swingeing increase in those who are greatly motivated by greed to exploit the fact that, inadvertently or otherwise, they are in possession of information that could be traded.

My name, my address and any other detail pertinent to me is pertinent to me alone. If that information is of any consequence to any other person – whether for profit or not – it is not to be traded under any circumstances.

One classic example of traded data relates to circumstances where a civil liability might be incurred, e.g. a motor accident. There is scarcely any physical damage to the vehicles involved and yet, 'claims farmers', unscrupulous solicitors, accident management companies, vehicle repairers, engineers or anybody involved in the process will have personal details of the parties involved in the accident; details which have a trading value to others who can exploit the civil litigation system – not in the name of justice and fair play but in the name of personal greed with little regard for the possible consequences of their activity. Watch TV during any advertisement break and bear witness to a myriad of traders (mostly illegitimate) who are seeking to make money from the 'victims' of the accident most of whom never suffered injury in the first instance but who are ready and willing to perjure themselves for the promise of a crock of gold.

Outlaw the trading of personal data and rid the country of a litigious nation whose primary motivation in life is "Something for nothing" 

My Home Is My Castle

There has been a huge increase in the number of people who can enter a private home without the permission of the home owner.

I would like all of these "rights of entry" to be abolished and if any are regarded as essential for the safety of the community then they should only be allowed on production of a search warrant endorsed by the court..

Why is this idea important?

There has been a huge increase in the number of people who can enter a private home without the permission of the home owner.

I would like all of these "rights of entry" to be abolished and if any are regarded as essential for the safety of the community then they should only be allowed on production of a search warrant endorsed by the court..

Stop banning things

How about not banning things unless the activity is actively harmful to society in a measurable sense? This might put a stop to some of the knee jerk legislation the previous, not sadly missed government indulged itself in. How about treating us as adults and not overgrown children who need nannying? That would make a refreshing change.

Why is this idea important?

How about not banning things unless the activity is actively harmful to society in a measurable sense? This might put a stop to some of the knee jerk legislation the previous, not sadly missed government indulged itself in. How about treating us as adults and not overgrown children who need nannying? That would make a refreshing change.

Complete Invasion of Privacy

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Why is this idea important?

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Automated law enforcement machines

The use of automated law enforcement machines should be reviewed and debated in public.

Law enforment machinery has proliferated in the UK over the last 15 years. The public were never consulted whether they wanted what is effectively a new and very intrusive form of policing. From speed cameras and bus lane cameras to CCTV and ANPR, someone is watching nearly all of us nearly all the time.

In a western democracy such as the UK, the public are supposed to be policed by their own consent and for the greater good. I maintain that there is no general public consent for the present level of automated law enforcement nor was it ever sought. It was imposed upon the nation without consultation.

Until and unless that public support can be shown to exist, there should be a moratorium on these machines and they should be switched off.

Why is this idea important?

The use of automated law enforcement machines should be reviewed and debated in public.

Law enforment machinery has proliferated in the UK over the last 15 years. The public were never consulted whether they wanted what is effectively a new and very intrusive form of policing. From speed cameras and bus lane cameras to CCTV and ANPR, someone is watching nearly all of us nearly all the time.

In a western democracy such as the UK, the public are supposed to be policed by their own consent and for the greater good. I maintain that there is no general public consent for the present level of automated law enforcement nor was it ever sought. It was imposed upon the nation without consultation.

Until and unless that public support can be shown to exist, there should be a moratorium on these machines and they should be switched off.

Bill of Rights required

To Include;

Public Control of Police Complaints. Abolish IPCC. Power of elected Public Commitee of members of public to directly dismiss Police Officers who, make up the law, abuse powers, deliberately seek to crush public free speech in public places, intimidate tourists, photgraphers and members of the public try to correct their actions. One strike out policy for all officers.

All police officers to swear an oath to serve the public and not government or corporations. All police officers to wear large insignia of "serving the public" on all items of clothing. Police to remove freemasonic black and white insignias from vehicles and uniforms and abolishion of all police lodges at freemasonic halls. IPCC to be investigated for failure to convict any Police Officers for over 1,000 deaths in police custody in last 30 years. No IPCC style system of a regional force to investigate the misdemeanors of another regional police force, public/people led bodies instead.

Other;

Abolition of all newly imposed thought and speech crimes. The absolute and unconditional right to offend and be offended, with exception, in any circumstance. Freedom of speech and free press in all open spaces, a criminal offence and dismissal for a police officer to obstruct free speech without exception. Free speech using an amplified tool to be permitted by law without exception. The setting up and funding of "speakers corners" areas in all UK towns and cities through government funding.

Press Laws;

No media or news information organisation in the UK, to be owned in part, by more than 5%, by any one shareholder or subscriber. No political funding donations to be excepted by any media or news information shareholder, employee, director or subscriber in the UK.

More Tomorrow, …….heres Tom with the weather.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

To Include;

Public Control of Police Complaints. Abolish IPCC. Power of elected Public Commitee of members of public to directly dismiss Police Officers who, make up the law, abuse powers, deliberately seek to crush public free speech in public places, intimidate tourists, photgraphers and members of the public try to correct their actions. One strike out policy for all officers.

All police officers to swear an oath to serve the public and not government or corporations. All police officers to wear large insignia of "serving the public" on all items of clothing. Police to remove freemasonic black and white insignias from vehicles and uniforms and abolishion of all police lodges at freemasonic halls. IPCC to be investigated for failure to convict any Police Officers for over 1,000 deaths in police custody in last 30 years. No IPCC style system of a regional force to investigate the misdemeanors of another regional police force, public/people led bodies instead.

Other;

Abolition of all newly imposed thought and speech crimes. The absolute and unconditional right to offend and be offended, with exception, in any circumstance. Freedom of speech and free press in all open spaces, a criminal offence and dismissal for a police officer to obstruct free speech without exception. Free speech using an amplified tool to be permitted by law without exception. The setting up and funding of "speakers corners" areas in all UK towns and cities through government funding.

Press Laws;

No media or news information organisation in the UK, to be owned in part, by more than 5%, by any one shareholder or subscriber. No political funding donations to be excepted by any media or news information shareholder, employee, director or subscriber in the UK.

More Tomorrow, …….heres Tom with the weather.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decriminalise Cannabis along the same lines as the Netherlands

I think we should look towards legalising cannabis in the UK, and stop penalising people that want to smoke it in their own home.

15 million people smoke it in the UK, it has less harmful affects or problems than alcohol, and the current legislation is keeping the supply within street gangs which leads to further problems such as the promotion of Class A drugs, weapons and a whole other murky world that the vast majority of users would not want to be a part of.

People have lived a long, enjoyable life using cannabis and it has been known to treast such as combating nausea from chemotherapy, lowering eye pressure in patients with glaucoma, treating AIDS-related wasting syndrome in order to stimulate appetite  and to a lesser degree to combat pain and muscle spasms in patients with diseases such as multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and Huntingtonís disease.

 

Cannabis has been around since the beginning of time, has been used as a remedy for many ailments, and its fibres can also be used to produce a number of different products. 

The UK should begin to reduce its deficit by introducing cannabis coffeshops such as the style in Holland.  With 15 million people using cannabis, we should seriously consider all the benefits to this.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I think we should look towards legalising cannabis in the UK, and stop penalising people that want to smoke it in their own home.

15 million people smoke it in the UK, it has less harmful affects or problems than alcohol, and the current legislation is keeping the supply within street gangs which leads to further problems such as the promotion of Class A drugs, weapons and a whole other murky world that the vast majority of users would not want to be a part of.

People have lived a long, enjoyable life using cannabis and it has been known to treast such as combating nausea from chemotherapy, lowering eye pressure in patients with glaucoma, treating AIDS-related wasting syndrome in order to stimulate appetite  and to a lesser degree to combat pain and muscle spasms in patients with diseases such as multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and Huntingtonís disease.

 

Cannabis has been around since the beginning of time, has been used as a remedy for many ailments, and its fibres can also be used to produce a number of different products. 

The UK should begin to reduce its deficit by introducing cannabis coffeshops such as the style in Holland.  With 15 million people using cannabis, we should seriously consider all the benefits to this.

 

 

 

Teenage Discrimination

As part of Teenagers Against Discrimination, i feel it only right to point a few obvious breaches of civil liberties towards Teenagers that is often overlooked.

 

Firstly, the infamous debate over the Mosquito Alarms. For anyone under a certain age to be submitted to an annoying, high pitch sound is a removal of our civil liberties, and it has also been argued (quite rightly in my opinion) that is even a breach of our human rights – why shouldnt we be able to walk down a public street hastle free? who decided that i or any other teenager was a potential criminal that deserved physical punishment?

 

The second point i would like to raise is the police power of stop and search. it is without doubt this power is used reguarly on teenagers ; as it is presumed we will be carrying a weapon or drugs. once again, this is a breach of our civil liberties – why should the police have the right to stop us and search us purely based on the opinion they have made by looking at us. what is that old phrase, can't judge a book by it's cover?

I know it can be argued that if you have nothing to hide, you shuldnt object to being searched… but think about it! we are on about the police stopping you wherever they like and asking you to empty your pockets. it is highly degrading and embarassing. at the very least, every passe rby during this immeadiately presumes you are a criminal. the next time they see you… what will they think? what will they remember? that's right – that you're the person that the police like to stop.

Why is this idea important?

As part of Teenagers Against Discrimination, i feel it only right to point a few obvious breaches of civil liberties towards Teenagers that is often overlooked.

 

Firstly, the infamous debate over the Mosquito Alarms. For anyone under a certain age to be submitted to an annoying, high pitch sound is a removal of our civil liberties, and it has also been argued (quite rightly in my opinion) that is even a breach of our human rights – why shouldnt we be able to walk down a public street hastle free? who decided that i or any other teenager was a potential criminal that deserved physical punishment?

 

The second point i would like to raise is the police power of stop and search. it is without doubt this power is used reguarly on teenagers ; as it is presumed we will be carrying a weapon or drugs. once again, this is a breach of our civil liberties – why should the police have the right to stop us and search us purely based on the opinion they have made by looking at us. what is that old phrase, can't judge a book by it's cover?

I know it can be argued that if you have nothing to hide, you shuldnt object to being searched… but think about it! we are on about the police stopping you wherever they like and asking you to empty your pockets. it is highly degrading and embarassing. at the very least, every passe rby during this immeadiately presumes you are a criminal. the next time they see you… what will they think? what will they remember? that's right – that you're the person that the police like to stop.

Repeal the Extreme Pornography section of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act

When the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was passed (even before the Extreme Pornography sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigratino Act made it into law) Schedule 3, Part 1, Section 4 (1)d of the SVGA contains the stipulation that someone could be banned from working with vulnerable groups for:

"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate"

In other words, *two years* before Extreme Pornography was outlawed, it was already deemed to be so dangerous that anyone looking at it could not be trusted to work with vulnerable groups.

The section of the above named act should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

When the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was passed (even before the Extreme Pornography sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigratino Act made it into law) Schedule 3, Part 1, Section 4 (1)d of the SVGA contains the stipulation that someone could be banned from working with vulnerable groups for:

"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate"

In other words, *two years* before Extreme Pornography was outlawed, it was already deemed to be so dangerous that anyone looking at it could not be trusted to work with vulnerable groups.

The section of the above named act should be repealed.

Legalise it!

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

B&B’s in residential areas that impose on ones privacy

I live in a quiet culdesac with limited privacy, front and rear. Why do local councils allow these establishments to set up when the area is a;lready swamped with cars, my limited privacy has been almost eroded and the B&B owner considers the turning area in the culdesac to be his private parking space because his drive is full of guests vehicles. I have complained prior to this B&B being allowed but seemd to fall on deaf ears. Seems the same old story, as long as it is not in MY back yard.

Why is this idea important?

I live in a quiet culdesac with limited privacy, front and rear. Why do local councils allow these establishments to set up when the area is a;lready swamped with cars, my limited privacy has been almost eroded and the B&B owner considers the turning area in the culdesac to be his private parking space because his drive is full of guests vehicles. I have complained prior to this B&B being allowed but seemd to fall on deaf ears. Seems the same old story, as long as it is not in MY back yard.

Abolish The warrant of access 1954 act.

This law is out dated and being abused by fat cat utilities companies in this country.

Companiis that are foriegn owned are using this to getpayment in many cases on accounts that are wrong.

No other private owned uk company has this power to gain access to a propertyof a debtor  by merely telling a magistrate or in Scotland a Justice of the peace that the account is outstanding and then and there on the companies word a  warrant is issued without even going to a hearing.

Out dated and unfair in todays market place.

Why is this idea important?

This law is out dated and being abused by fat cat utilities companies in this country.

Companiis that are foriegn owned are using this to getpayment in many cases on accounts that are wrong.

No other private owned uk company has this power to gain access to a propertyof a debtor  by merely telling a magistrate or in Scotland a Justice of the peace that the account is outstanding and then and there on the companies word a  warrant is issued without even going to a hearing.

Out dated and unfair in todays market place.