Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Civil Law of Property

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

Why is this idea important?

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Restore stolen goods to owners

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Why is this idea important?

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Let Owners Build Big Houses On Own Land – With Garages

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Why is this idea important?

If you own a piece of land you are not allowed to build a comfortable house to your own design. Government rules effectively forbid you from making the rooms large enough to be comfortable. You probably cannot build just one house either because Minimum Density Regulations mean the land only gets planning consent if it is split into two or more. And no way will you be allowed as much parking as you want. Two adults and two teens who will soon be working 20 miles away – no the PolitiKal Kommisars in most areas order a maximum of 1 parking space per household (often less, 0.8 for flats) in order to force people onto public transport. Which is fine except late at night, early in the morning, on Bank Holidays, if providing any kind of emergency response, or simply if one has back pain and cannot use badly driven busses.

Do not impose maximum standards on property owners that they cannot exceed.

Right To Evict Squatters

At present if a householder leaves a window open, squatters can get in and can legally occupy a house until an expensive High Court order has been obtained. This can take weeks or months.

If a small landlord is doing up a property and builders leave a window or door open to bring building materials in or let paint fumes out the same applies.

in 99% of cases squatters are parasites who leach off property that would genuinely be owner or tenant occupied. It is very rare for property owners to genuinely be unaware of property that they own (the GLC famously forgot to transfer some expensive Council stock to London Boroughs but that is rare).

Change the law so a High Court order is unnecessary. If a house already has an occupant or building work is in progress, give the owner the owner or tenant the right to call the Police and regain the property the very same day, subject only to proof of identity, eg Debit Card checked against Electoral Register.

"Squatters Rights are important because some landlords deliberately keep property vacant" ~ if the Government wants to preserve David-v-Goliath laws, keep Squatters Rights, but only where the squatter can proove that a property has been unoccupied for more than 6 months, eg dated photographs showing the passing of the seasons.

And put effective laws in place to recover court costs and repairs – "Oh I found it like that" should not be an excuse.

Why is this idea important?

At present if a householder leaves a window open, squatters can get in and can legally occupy a house until an expensive High Court order has been obtained. This can take weeks or months.

If a small landlord is doing up a property and builders leave a window or door open to bring building materials in or let paint fumes out the same applies.

in 99% of cases squatters are parasites who leach off property that would genuinely be owner or tenant occupied. It is very rare for property owners to genuinely be unaware of property that they own (the GLC famously forgot to transfer some expensive Council stock to London Boroughs but that is rare).

Change the law so a High Court order is unnecessary. If a house already has an occupant or building work is in progress, give the owner the owner or tenant the right to call the Police and regain the property the very same day, subject only to proof of identity, eg Debit Card checked against Electoral Register.

"Squatters Rights are important because some landlords deliberately keep property vacant" ~ if the Government wants to preserve David-v-Goliath laws, keep Squatters Rights, but only where the squatter can proove that a property has been unoccupied for more than 6 months, eg dated photographs showing the passing of the seasons.

And put effective laws in place to recover court costs and repairs – "Oh I found it like that" should not be an excuse.

Planning Reform

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

Why is this idea important?

Change the TCPA so that beyond specifying a usage class for land planners have no further involvement.

Most of the great buildings would never have been built under the current regime.

Right to enter your Property

The only people who should have a right to enter your Property without permission are the emergency services and that only in an emergency unless there is a court warrant.

Anyone else should have no rights unless with a court warrant, and courts should not issue warrants for nosy LA's etc.

Some leniency should be allowed for child protection services

 

Why is this idea important?

The only people who should have a right to enter your Property without permission are the emergency services and that only in an emergency unless there is a court warrant.

Anyone else should have no rights unless with a court warrant, and courts should not issue warrants for nosy LA's etc.

Some leniency should be allowed for child protection services

 

Scrap Leaseholds on Properties

I would like to see the leasehold system held on many properties scrapped. This is such an unfair and outdated idea where you buy a house or a flat for a silly amount of money and it is never really your own. You will always be subject to a faceless landlord and continue to pay them for the entire time you 'own' the property.  It's an outdated Feudal right that urgently needs changing.

Many leaseholders will complain that they will lose out and there is already an option to buy your leasehold if you want to (or the majority of flats want to). This is out of reach for most people who have made their biggest ever purchase (their house). An assessment should be done to determine the real price of the land that your house stands on and include it within the house/ flat price. Until this is done nobody with a leasehold house can truly say that it's their castle.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the leasehold system held on many properties scrapped. This is such an unfair and outdated idea where you buy a house or a flat for a silly amount of money and it is never really your own. You will always be subject to a faceless landlord and continue to pay them for the entire time you 'own' the property.  It's an outdated Feudal right that urgently needs changing.

Many leaseholders will complain that they will lose out and there is already an option to buy your leasehold if you want to (or the majority of flats want to). This is out of reach for most people who have made their biggest ever purchase (their house). An assessment should be done to determine the real price of the land that your house stands on and include it within the house/ flat price. Until this is done nobody with a leasehold house can truly say that it's their castle.

Private Sector Tenants’ Rights: End 2 Month Notice Period

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the current Landlord and Tenant Legislation to give Tenants in the Private Rented Sector more security.

Currently, a Landlord can force a Tenant out of their home with two months notice, with no reason given. The tenant has no right of appeal.

This is wildly out of line with rental contracts in Europe, where the typical French contract lasts for 3-4 years, and in Germany they can continue indefinitely.

Unfair shorthold tenancy agreements

Shorthold tenancies were supposed to aid both tenant and landlord. They do not. In the most important aspect of all, that of disclosure, they aid only the landlord.

Currently both parties sign a shorthold tenancy agreement. Once a tenant moves in, if the they discover something which makes living in the property unbearable, the tenant cannot move out without financial penalty unless they find a replacement tenant. This is wrong. There should be a one month cooling-off period where the tenant can leave the property without penalty (provided of course they have paid rent for the month) if they discover something which was not disclosed to them. Whether the landlord was aware or not. It is the landlords duty to ensure the property is habitable both physically and otherwise.

Why is this idea important?

Shorthold tenancies were supposed to aid both tenant and landlord. They do not. In the most important aspect of all, that of disclosure, they aid only the landlord.

Currently both parties sign a shorthold tenancy agreement. Once a tenant moves in, if the they discover something which makes living in the property unbearable, the tenant cannot move out without financial penalty unless they find a replacement tenant. This is wrong. There should be a one month cooling-off period where the tenant can leave the property without penalty (provided of course they have paid rent for the month) if they discover something which was not disclosed to them. Whether the landlord was aware or not. It is the landlords duty to ensure the property is habitable both physically and otherwise.

Arrange to get rid of officials’ rights to enter your home without a warrant

It used to be said an Englishman's home was his castle – nomore! In recent years new laws supposedly to counteract terrorism have been introduced allowing literally hundreds of petty officials to enter your home with no recourse to stop it. Let's get rid of all those laws which give officials the right to enter your home. Of course there are times when it would be proper to carry out searches when investigating criminal acts in which case a warrant from a judge should be obtained beforehand.

Why is this idea important?

It used to be said an Englishman's home was his castle – nomore! In recent years new laws supposedly to counteract terrorism have been introduced allowing literally hundreds of petty officials to enter your home with no recourse to stop it. Let's get rid of all those laws which give officials the right to enter your home. Of course there are times when it would be proper to carry out searches when investigating criminal acts in which case a warrant from a judge should be obtained beforehand.

Protect my land

Allow forced eviction of long-term (more than a few minutes, for example, so not your casual trespassor who is briefly crossing your land) trespass on land I own. If immigrants or travellers take up residence in my field/shed/garden/tree (as seen in press in recent months) then they should be forcibly evicted without question as it is my land, not theirs.

Why is this idea important?

Allow forced eviction of long-term (more than a few minutes, for example, so not your casual trespassor who is briefly crossing your land) trespass on land I own. If immigrants or travellers take up residence in my field/shed/garden/tree (as seen in press in recent months) then they should be forcibly evicted without question as it is my land, not theirs.