Stop pumping public money into ACPO, a private company

The Association of Chief Police Officers is a private company which receives millions of pounds a year of state money. It advises Government, it sets policing policy, it campaigns for increased police powers, and is engaged in commercial activities over which it has a monopoly.

Much of the legislation which has reduced our liberties over the last 13 years has been proposed or strongly supported by ACPO.

As a private company it is not accountable to the public, and is not covered by the Freedom of Information act.

Why is this idea important?

The Association of Chief Police Officers is a private company which receives millions of pounds a year of state money. It advises Government, it sets policing policy, it campaigns for increased police powers, and is engaged in commercial activities over which it has a monopoly.

Much of the legislation which has reduced our liberties over the last 13 years has been proposed or strongly supported by ACPO.

As a private company it is not accountable to the public, and is not covered by the Freedom of Information act.

Remove requiements for planning authorities to put public notices in local newspapers

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment planning authorities are required to place notices in local newspapers at regular stages e.g. to annource planning applications, to annouce consultation on a plan, to say that a plan has been adopted etc.  This is very expensive.  Each time that a notice is placed it costs about £1000, depending on the individual newspaper.  

I'm not sure that many people read the notices section and think that there are better ways of getting the infomation to the public (e.g. online consultations, press releases, notices displayed at sites).  These methods are already widely used.

Enact the Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Why is this idea important?

Forcing millions of ordinary people to borrow their means of exchange into existence from the banks at their own risk and expense, in the form of over-priced mortgages and other loans, and then taxing them to service government debt on top of that, severely limits economic independence and freedom of choice.  If the definition of a slave is not ill-treatment, but the fact that he or she has no say in their own policy, the decision to tax the people to save the banks, without any offer of a vote or any discussion of alternative means of creating new purchasing power, reduces large swaths of the population to slavery.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 proposes a simple reform which will dramatically reduce taxes, while at the same time expanding and maintaining infrastructure and providing decent public services.

The Bill establishes as its Universal Principle that: “Throughout the entire banking and deposit taking system … every credit to an account must be matched by an equal debit from a different account.”  Only the Bank of England will be exempt from this requirement, thereby enjoying sole right to create all of the UK’s new money, both cash and non-cash.

Enactment of the Bill will complete the work of The Bank Charter Act of 1844, which made it as illegal for the commercial banks to print notes as it already was for them to mint coins.  Under the Act it will also be illegal for them to create non-cash money in the form of "credit".  In effect, the money supply will be nationalised without any need to nationalise the banks, which will continue to compete for their profits in the open market – with the difference that they will now confine themselves to borrowing and lending money which already exists.

With money recognised as a public utility, the MPC will be responsible for issuing or withdrawing it from circulation directly, instead of depending on the blunt instrument of interest rates to control inflation; and any new money created can be spent into circulation on  public works and services as indicated by voters in the usual way, at general elections.

The Bank of England (Creation of Currency) Bill 2010 is online, with detailed explanations and FAQs, at http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/.

Benefits paid out abroad

Stop allowing benefits to be paid to people that are not even living in this country.

Example:

"This week, ministers admitted that more than £1million a month in child benefit is going to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. It was the first time that Labour has acknowledged that the money – funded by British taxpayers – is being paid abroad. The revelation triggered a political controversy over the fact that the Government is paying for the upbringing of children who do not live in Britain and who may never even have set foot in the country. It also underlines how our generous benefits system acts as a powerful draw for migrant workers. Moreover, this largesse is open to widespread abuse. The Trajkowski family qualify for child benefit because their father works in London as a builder and pays his taxes. Like all migrants from the eight East European countries which joined the EU in 2004, he won the right to claim state benefits after working here for a year."

Complete article can be found – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month–mothers-Poland.html

Why is this idea important?

Stop allowing benefits to be paid to people that are not even living in this country.

Example:

"This week, ministers admitted that more than £1million a month in child benefit is going to the families of youngsters who live in the former Soviet bloc countries. It was the first time that Labour has acknowledged that the money – funded by British taxpayers – is being paid abroad. The revelation triggered a political controversy over the fact that the Government is paying for the upbringing of children who do not live in Britain and who may never even have set foot in the country. It also underlines how our generous benefits system acts as a powerful draw for migrant workers. Moreover, this largesse is open to widespread abuse. The Trajkowski family qualify for child benefit because their father works in London as a builder and pays his taxes. Like all migrants from the eight East European countries which joined the EU in 2004, he won the right to claim state benefits after working here for a year."

Complete article can be found – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483225/1m-child-benefit-paid-month–mothers-Poland.html

make publicly companies subject to the Freedom of Information Act

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.

Why is this idea important?

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.