Scrap English Heritage (1983) & let The National Trust (1895) do it

Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Time to review the libel laws.

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Why is this idea important?

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

We want the governement to explain this –Sativex– vs–Cannabis–

As a matter of fact…

Sativex is an oromucosal (mouth) spray developed by the UK company GW Pharmaceuticals for multiple sclerosis patients, who can use it to alleviate neuropathic pain, spasticity, overactive bladder, and other symptoms. Sativex is also being prescribed to alleviate pain due to cancer and has been researched in various models of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Sativex is distinct from all other pharmaceutically produced cannabinoids currently available because it is derived from botanical material, rather than a solely synthetic process. Sativex is a pharmaceutical product standardised in composition, formulation, and dose. Its principal active cannabinoid components are the cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The product is formulated as an oromucosal spray which is administered by spraying into the mouth. Each spray of Sativex delivers a fixed dose of 2.7mg THC and 2.5mg CBD.

Now can the government to explain to us this:

Why do you approve prescribing a medicine that is made of cannabis to people with multiple sclerosis But at the same time you send the same ill people to prison for cultivating their own plants?

Is it all about money ? how can you tell people that they can buy cannabis of the governement but if they are caught bying it elswhere or growing it you would send them to prison?

Is this not denying civil liberties to people?

Why is this idea important?

As a matter of fact…

Sativex is an oromucosal (mouth) spray developed by the UK company GW Pharmaceuticals for multiple sclerosis patients, who can use it to alleviate neuropathic pain, spasticity, overactive bladder, and other symptoms. Sativex is also being prescribed to alleviate pain due to cancer and has been researched in various models of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Sativex is distinct from all other pharmaceutically produced cannabinoids currently available because it is derived from botanical material, rather than a solely synthetic process. Sativex is a pharmaceutical product standardised in composition, formulation, and dose. Its principal active cannabinoid components are the cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The product is formulated as an oromucosal spray which is administered by spraying into the mouth. Each spray of Sativex delivers a fixed dose of 2.7mg THC and 2.5mg CBD.

Now can the government to explain to us this:

Why do you approve prescribing a medicine that is made of cannabis to people with multiple sclerosis But at the same time you send the same ill people to prison for cultivating their own plants?

Is it all about money ? how can you tell people that they can buy cannabis of the governement but if they are caught bying it elswhere or growing it you would send them to prison?

Is this not denying civil liberties to people?

Repeal the Child Support Act

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Abolish the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Remove ICAS save money

ICAS (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service) was set up to 'help' people who have complains about a particular NHS service. My experience of ICAs when I has a complaint about the Bright NHS Trust was that they basically didn't do very much, making it pretty easy for the Trust director to just bat the problem back and forth without ever reaching resolution.

If this organisation can't add value to the NHS process then it should be disbanded and the money used more appropriately.

Why is this idea important?

ICAS (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service) was set up to 'help' people who have complains about a particular NHS service. My experience of ICAs when I has a complaint about the Bright NHS Trust was that they basically didn't do very much, making it pretty easy for the Trust director to just bat the problem back and forth without ever reaching resolution.

If this organisation can't add value to the NHS process then it should be disbanded and the money used more appropriately.

Scrap existing Marine Conservation Zones consultation quangos

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Abolish the Health Professions Council (HPC)

The Health Professions Council (HPC) is one of several bodies that implement the socially corrosive theory that while professionals cannot be trusted, a quango operating a national database can. All its activities duplicate and subvert the work of the courts, employment tribunals, local management procedures or professional associations.

It should be abolished completely, freeing health professionals from double jeopardy, allowing local procedures for discipline and criminal justice to operate without interference, and encouraging professional associations to take responsibility for their members.

Note: The abolition of an equivalent body 'regulating' teachers, the General Teaching Council for England, has already been announced to Parliament.

Why is this idea important?

The Health Professions Council (HPC) is one of several bodies that implement the socially corrosive theory that while professionals cannot be trusted, a quango operating a national database can. All its activities duplicate and subvert the work of the courts, employment tribunals, local management procedures or professional associations.

It should be abolished completely, freeing health professionals from double jeopardy, allowing local procedures for discipline and criminal justice to operate without interference, and encouraging professional associations to take responsibility for their members.

Note: The abolition of an equivalent body 'regulating' teachers, the General Teaching Council for England, has already been announced to Parliament.