Removal of Parental Responsibilty for Long term Prisoners

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Why is this idea important?

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Make Council council tax and spending plans available to the public prior to council elections

Council spending and tax plans only ever seem to be made public at a time when that particular council is not undergoing an election. This practice is completely unfair as the electorate are expected to place their vote without knowing what what they are necessarily voting for. Parties being elected to a local council should be under an obligation to publish this information aon the run up to local elections.

Why is this idea important?

Council spending and tax plans only ever seem to be made public at a time when that particular council is not undergoing an election. This practice is completely unfair as the electorate are expected to place their vote without knowing what what they are necessarily voting for. Parties being elected to a local council should be under an obligation to publish this information aon the run up to local elections.

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.

Create a “Contract Oversight” Department

So often we have seen ludicrous contracts issued by the government, contracts that would never every happen in the private sector.  For example, the GP contracts started by Labour which resulted in GP getting a massive pay rise for less work and they no longer provided out of hours cover.  How the government issued such a contract is beyond belief (and shows a complete lack of commercial awareness).  Similarly, when sir Ian Blair resigned as Chief of the Met he received a massive pay-off – yet he resigned.  He was not sacked, not made redundant, his contract was not broken by his employer – he himself decided to resign yet he still got a massive pay-off.  so often these daft completely uncommercial contracts are given out and it is the taxpayers who pick up the bill.  Cancellation f the ID card contracts results in big penalty clauses being paid to the contractors – way beyond their losses due to contract cancellation (in practice a "set-up" job by Labour to try and avoid a new government cancelling the scheme).

So, create a department with commercial and legal expertise to approve and have veto over contracts issued by the government and quangos.  Maybe initially just covering employment contracts (maybe >£150k) but once up and running to maybe include IT development contracts, all contracts, etc.  How far it could be extended is for others to decide as there would be a law of diminishing returns, but employment contracts is a major important one.  This is not about establishing if the person deserves that level of pay nor about deciding if the price is fir but rather about avoiding such daft loopholes that so many government contracts seem to give to the contractor to the taxpayers expense.

Why is this idea important?

So often we have seen ludicrous contracts issued by the government, contracts that would never every happen in the private sector.  For example, the GP contracts started by Labour which resulted in GP getting a massive pay rise for less work and they no longer provided out of hours cover.  How the government issued such a contract is beyond belief (and shows a complete lack of commercial awareness).  Similarly, when sir Ian Blair resigned as Chief of the Met he received a massive pay-off – yet he resigned.  He was not sacked, not made redundant, his contract was not broken by his employer – he himself decided to resign yet he still got a massive pay-off.  so often these daft completely uncommercial contracts are given out and it is the taxpayers who pick up the bill.  Cancellation f the ID card contracts results in big penalty clauses being paid to the contractors – way beyond their losses due to contract cancellation (in practice a "set-up" job by Labour to try and avoid a new government cancelling the scheme).

So, create a department with commercial and legal expertise to approve and have veto over contracts issued by the government and quangos.  Maybe initially just covering employment contracts (maybe >£150k) but once up and running to maybe include IT development contracts, all contracts, etc.  How far it could be extended is for others to decide as there would be a law of diminishing returns, but employment contracts is a major important one.  This is not about establishing if the person deserves that level of pay nor about deciding if the price is fir but rather about avoiding such daft loopholes that so many government contracts seem to give to the contractor to the taxpayers expense.

Re-nationalise the Railways

That the Government repeal certain parts of the Railways Act 1993, in order that private operators do not have their franchises renewed or extended. The operation of these services will then be taken over by a publicly owned, publicly accountable body.

Why is this idea important?

That the Government repeal certain parts of the Railways Act 1993, in order that private operators do not have their franchises renewed or extended. The operation of these services will then be taken over by a publicly owned, publicly accountable body.

Legalisation and control of all drugs

If drugs were legalised and controlled by the government as alcohol is nowadays this would open up an increased revenue for the state and could help deal with Britain's debt and help with other public services. It would also take off 99% of all drug dealers off the street and it would mean clean and controlled substances would be made available. In addition to this, it would take away a lot of the glamour and mystery surrounding drugs and stop several people from ever getting involved. Controlled drugs mean a certain quality and quantity for sale can and should be fixed. A place to consume these drugs should also be designated and ensure anyone breaking these laws should be punished with a heavy fine. No child should be subjected to narcotics until they reach adulthood breaking this boundary should incur heavy fines and the like. Also people who pose a risk for others eg: those with mental health problems should not be sold narcotics. Changing the law would mean police time could be better spent tracking down dangerous criminals and deal with actual problems instead of a few kids smoking cannabis in a park. Although this is very brief and not incredibly accurate. The evidence is out there already and has been since the start of this war on drugs. I should not need to state the full case by myself.

Why is this idea important?

If drugs were legalised and controlled by the government as alcohol is nowadays this would open up an increased revenue for the state and could help deal with Britain's debt and help with other public services. It would also take off 99% of all drug dealers off the street and it would mean clean and controlled substances would be made available. In addition to this, it would take away a lot of the glamour and mystery surrounding drugs and stop several people from ever getting involved. Controlled drugs mean a certain quality and quantity for sale can and should be fixed. A place to consume these drugs should also be designated and ensure anyone breaking these laws should be punished with a heavy fine. No child should be subjected to narcotics until they reach adulthood breaking this boundary should incur heavy fines and the like. Also people who pose a risk for others eg: those with mental health problems should not be sold narcotics. Changing the law would mean police time could be better spent tracking down dangerous criminals and deal with actual problems instead of a few kids smoking cannabis in a park. Although this is very brief and not incredibly accurate. The evidence is out there already and has been since the start of this war on drugs. I should not need to state the full case by myself.