In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
Why is this idea important?
In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
Currently, under Gangmasters Licencing Act (2004) and the Conduct of Employment Agencies Act, recruitment businesses are obliged to check with hirers about health and safety risks to the temporary worker and what has been done to minimise these risks.
To a larger extent, the Gangmasters Act goes even further indicating that recruitment businesses should assess the hirer's health and safety policies, risk assessments, etc., to satisfy themselves that the hirer is providing suitable (health & safety) conditions for any temporary worker(s).
Recruitment businesses/agencies are themselves subject to health and safety legislation (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations). Recruitment businesses (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations) for their own internal employees, have to have a health and safety policy statement and risk assessments for the work that is conducted as part of its' business activities.
As such, this means that agencies not only have to be capable to adhere to the above health and safety requirements for their own business BUT also have to be able to assess and check the health and safety policies and risk assessments of a wide range of hirer businesses/sectors/jobs to satisfy themselves prior to supplying the temporary worker.
The types of businesses that a recruitment business could deal with can be extremely diverse! It is impossible for the recruitment agency, in a commercial world, to be expert on all the different health and safety requirements for the different jobs in the different industry sectors.
To make matters worse, recruitment businesses are then subject to having to acquire these documents and then print/copy and then issue and explain these documents to temporary workers prior to them going out on assignment!
Normally all hirers go through all this information with their own staff, contractors and temporary workers as a matter of precaution and good practice (and for some as part of their health and safety policy). So when recruitment businesses ask for this information and then scrutinise it and then want to give copies to temporary workers and explain it to them, hirers complain of duplication and causing them additional work.
This is also a complaint of temporary workers and equally of recruitment businesses (the ones who bother to comply in a industry where no-one is policing the matter!). So why do we do it? Because its the law! In a recent experiment, we contacted the main recruitment agencies in Cumbria and South West Scotland to ask for a temporary worker. None of the agencies (10 asked) asked for any information in repsect of health and safety!
Any professional recruiter will have a terms of business contract with the hirer which includes a clause stating the hirer should manage the temporary worker as if she/he were a member of their own staff. Recruitment businesses have no control over the work environment of the hirer whatsoever, so why involve the recruiter in taking responsibility for something it cannot control???
Our idea is, that being employers are responsible for health and safety for their own businesses anyway and that recruitment businesses cannot change/influence/be responsible for a third party hirers' health and safety, then the government should make a simple clear ruling that all businesses in the UK should be responsible for health and safety for temporary workers they hire.
Why is this idea important?
Currently, under Gangmasters Licencing Act (2004) and the Conduct of Employment Agencies Act, recruitment businesses are obliged to check with hirers about health and safety risks to the temporary worker and what has been done to minimise these risks.
To a larger extent, the Gangmasters Act goes even further indicating that recruitment businesses should assess the hirer's health and safety policies, risk assessments, etc., to satisfy themselves that the hirer is providing suitable (health & safety) conditions for any temporary worker(s).
Recruitment businesses/agencies are themselves subject to health and safety legislation (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations). Recruitment businesses (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations) for their own internal employees, have to have a health and safety policy statement and risk assessments for the work that is conducted as part of its' business activities.
As such, this means that agencies not only have to be capable to adhere to the above health and safety requirements for their own business BUT also have to be able to assess and check the health and safety policies and risk assessments of a wide range of hirer businesses/sectors/jobs to satisfy themselves prior to supplying the temporary worker.
The types of businesses that a recruitment business could deal with can be extremely diverse! It is impossible for the recruitment agency, in a commercial world, to be expert on all the different health and safety requirements for the different jobs in the different industry sectors.
To make matters worse, recruitment businesses are then subject to having to acquire these documents and then print/copy and then issue and explain these documents to temporary workers prior to them going out on assignment!
Normally all hirers go through all this information with their own staff, contractors and temporary workers as a matter of precaution and good practice (and for some as part of their health and safety policy). So when recruitment businesses ask for this information and then scrutinise it and then want to give copies to temporary workers and explain it to them, hirers complain of duplication and causing them additional work.
This is also a complaint of temporary workers and equally of recruitment businesses (the ones who bother to comply in a industry where no-one is policing the matter!). So why do we do it? Because its the law! In a recent experiment, we contacted the main recruitment agencies in Cumbria and South West Scotland to ask for a temporary worker. None of the agencies (10 asked) asked for any information in repsect of health and safety!
Any professional recruiter will have a terms of business contract with the hirer which includes a clause stating the hirer should manage the temporary worker as if she/he were a member of their own staff. Recruitment businesses have no control over the work environment of the hirer whatsoever, so why involve the recruiter in taking responsibility for something it cannot control???
Our idea is, that being employers are responsible for health and safety for their own businesses anyway and that recruitment businesses cannot change/influence/be responsible for a third party hirers' health and safety, then the government should make a simple clear ruling that all businesses in the UK should be responsible for health and safety for temporary workers they hire.
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
Why is this idea important?
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Why is this idea important?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.
Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.
The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.
Why is this idea important?
Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.
Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.
The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
Why is this idea important?
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Why is this idea important?
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
If you are a (close family member of a) EU national, you pay the reduced 'home' fee at Universities in England. There are residency requirements that you have not lived outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland in the three years before your course starts but there are no residency requirements for the UK.
If you are the child of a Swiss national, you also pay the reduced 'home' fee but you have to fulfil the above prior residency requirement AS WELL AS being resident in the United Kingdom on the first academic day of the first academic year of your course. For all courses beginning between August and December, this is universally defined as September 1.
The situation is thus that if an EU national and a child of a Swiss national both start a course in mid-October, the child of a Swiss national has to take up residence in the UK already on or before September 1, wheras the EU national can just arrive on the day his course actually starts.
The exactly same provision applies in terms of eligibility for student loans.
Such discrimination is unnecessary and unfair – EU and Swiss students should be treated similarly, otherwise the spirit of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland is violated.
Source: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091555_en_18 (clauses 9 versus 11)
Why is this idea important?
If you are a (close family member of a) EU national, you pay the reduced 'home' fee at Universities in England. There are residency requirements that you have not lived outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland in the three years before your course starts but there are no residency requirements for the UK.
If you are the child of a Swiss national, you also pay the reduced 'home' fee but you have to fulfil the above prior residency requirement AS WELL AS being resident in the United Kingdom on the first academic day of the first academic year of your course. For all courses beginning between August and December, this is universally defined as September 1.
The situation is thus that if an EU national and a child of a Swiss national both start a course in mid-October, the child of a Swiss national has to take up residence in the UK already on or before September 1, wheras the EU national can just arrive on the day his course actually starts.
The exactly same provision applies in terms of eligibility for student loans.
Such discrimination is unnecessary and unfair – EU and Swiss students should be treated similarly, otherwise the spirit of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland is violated.
Source: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091555_en_18 (clauses 9 versus 11)
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
Why is this idea important?
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
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.
"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."
These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.
The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.
This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!
Why is this idea important?
"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."
These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.
The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.
This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!
The suite of regulations known collectively as the Packaging and Waste Regulations are without doubt the biggest environmental pain ever to be imposed on industry. I am an Environmental Legal Specialist working with a prominant certification body and visit about 120 to 150 companies a year. The time and effort required to calculate the "Producer Responsibility" is out of all proportion to either the money involved or even the environmental benefit. Ideally the whole concept needs a complete rethink. Short of that my idea is to simplify the system.
Allow manufacturing industry to make a declaration that the packaging used is proportional to production and that there has been no significant change since the last return. Then allow them to calculate the responsibility based on annual production figures – a 10 minute job.
To emphasise this a few anedotes:-
a) one company I visited spend 4 man months from December to the end of January to calculate a responsibility that almost always results in a payment of between £5200 and £5800;
b) another company was severely criticised by its compliance scheme for not calculating the weight of ink used in the cardboard box bar code marking system;
c) another was also in trouble because they forgot to take acount of the change in the type (and therefore the weight) of staples used.
As a suite of regulations they have lost the plot.
Why is this idea important?
The suite of regulations known collectively as the Packaging and Waste Regulations are without doubt the biggest environmental pain ever to be imposed on industry. I am an Environmental Legal Specialist working with a prominant certification body and visit about 120 to 150 companies a year. The time and effort required to calculate the "Producer Responsibility" is out of all proportion to either the money involved or even the environmental benefit. Ideally the whole concept needs a complete rethink. Short of that my idea is to simplify the system.
Allow manufacturing industry to make a declaration that the packaging used is proportional to production and that there has been no significant change since the last return. Then allow them to calculate the responsibility based on annual production figures – a 10 minute job.
To emphasise this a few anedotes:-
a) one company I visited spend 4 man months from December to the end of January to calculate a responsibility that almost always results in a payment of between £5200 and £5800;
b) another company was severely criticised by its compliance scheme for not calculating the weight of ink used in the cardboard box bar code marking system;
c) another was also in trouble because they forgot to take acount of the change in the type (and therefore the weight) of staples used.
As a suite of regulations they have lost the plot.
The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.
However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.
HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)
Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.
What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.
By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.
It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.
Why is this idea important?
The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.
However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.
HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)
Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.
What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.
By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.
It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.
Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.
Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights.
Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.
More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.
Why is this idea important?
Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.
Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights.
Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.
More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.
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.
It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.
The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.
The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.
The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray? I think not!
Why is this idea important?
It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.
The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.
The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.
The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray? I think not!
Remove the requirement to join a producer scheme for small and medium sized enterprises.
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE Regulations) embody in UK law the requirements of the EU Directive 2002/96/EU. Typically, the regulations in other EU countries have been applied differently and allow exemptions for small businesses, but in the UK this is not so.
The WEEE Regulations place a requirement on companies to join a producer scheme, typically this costs £1000 per year, with additional costs depending on the amount of WEEE by weight placed on sale in the UK
The basic idea of these regulations is make manufacturers pay for the disposal costs of electrical equipment at the end of it's life, and there is some logic in this for mass produced items such as televisions. However for small companies the costs are disproportionate and the red tape is a nightmare.
There are many ridiculous aspects to this legislation.
– Producers that exclusively export (whether to the EU or rest of the world) are not covered
– Producers that make equipment in other countries for sale here are not covered
– The emphasis on the weight of the product is unfair on, for example, lathe manufacturers whose products contain lots of cast iron and concrete to make them heavy, and only a small proportion of electronics.
This is an excellent example of the UK "Gold Plating" an EU Directive
Why is this idea important?
Remove the requirement to join a producer scheme for small and medium sized enterprises.
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE Regulations) embody in UK law the requirements of the EU Directive 2002/96/EU. Typically, the regulations in other EU countries have been applied differently and allow exemptions for small businesses, but in the UK this is not so.
The WEEE Regulations place a requirement on companies to join a producer scheme, typically this costs £1000 per year, with additional costs depending on the amount of WEEE by weight placed on sale in the UK
The basic idea of these regulations is make manufacturers pay for the disposal costs of electrical equipment at the end of it's life, and there is some logic in this for mass produced items such as televisions. However for small companies the costs are disproportionate and the red tape is a nightmare.
There are many ridiculous aspects to this legislation.
– Producers that exclusively export (whether to the EU or rest of the world) are not covered
– Producers that make equipment in other countries for sale here are not covered
– The emphasis on the weight of the product is unfair on, for example, lathe manufacturers whose products contain lots of cast iron and concrete to make them heavy, and only a small proportion of electronics.
This is an excellent example of the UK "Gold Plating" an EU Directive
Remove the regulation which restricts Pharmacies from dispensing without prescription anti-biotics and higher strength medications (with some limitations of course). On the continent Pharmacies/Chemists are permitted to dispense anti-biotics and higher strength medicines without a prescription from a GP. Surely this would free up time in GP's surgeries saving the NHS time to deal with more serious cases.
Its worth noting that Pharmacists are trained to do this already is just they are not permitted to do so in this country.
Why is this idea important?
Remove the regulation which restricts Pharmacies from dispensing without prescription anti-biotics and higher strength medications (with some limitations of course). On the continent Pharmacies/Chemists are permitted to dispense anti-biotics and higher strength medicines without a prescription from a GP. Surely this would free up time in GP's surgeries saving the NHS time to deal with more serious cases.
Its worth noting that Pharmacists are trained to do this already is just they are not permitted to do so in this country.
Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose. By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.
Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.
Why is this idea important?
Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose. By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.
Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.
Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud. This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have. Compassion and sound economics all in one!
Why is this idea important?
Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud. This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have. Compassion and sound economics all in one!
The tax on products that have been proven to cause ill-effects on health should be increased. Such as Alcohol, cigarettes and junk food.
Why is this idea important?
The tax on products that have been proven to cause ill-effects on health should be increased. Such as Alcohol, cigarettes and junk food.
Gas engineers have to go to college every five years and take the same exams over and over again. The cost is massive with all the different modules required, basic safety, flues, cookers, fires, boilers etc. Plus the three or four days off of work.
I have now done it four times and every time it has been exactly the same, what is the point !
I did a five year apprenticeship to start with which covered everything, now I have to keep on doing the same exam every five years. We are not stupid, if there are any updates we need to know we can read it in the Gas Safe Magazine.
There is a huge training con here making a very good living of off the backs of gas engineers.
Why is this idea important?
Gas engineers have to go to college every five years and take the same exams over and over again. The cost is massive with all the different modules required, basic safety, flues, cookers, fires, boilers etc. Plus the three or four days off of work.
I have now done it four times and every time it has been exactly the same, what is the point !
I did a five year apprenticeship to start with which covered everything, now I have to keep on doing the same exam every five years. We are not stupid, if there are any updates we need to know we can read it in the Gas Safe Magazine.
There is a huge training con here making a very good living of off the backs of gas engineers.
(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)
Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned).
Why is this idea important?
(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)
Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned).
Is it any business of the state how hot I like my bath water? Apparently yes! The last government forced through, without any publicity or consultation with the general public, a regulation making it a criminal offence to have a bath hotter than 48 degrees. How many people knew that? Since 6th April it has been illegal for anyone to sell or supply a bath or bath taps that would supply water hotter than a temperature decided by a government minister! At a stroke having separate 'hot' and 'cold' taps on new baths has been made a crime. If I want my bath hotter than the government thinks is adequate I'm not allowed one – 'government knows what's best for you'. Unbelievable! Can't we even be trusted to run a bath now without nanny state looking over our shoulder and lecturing us? "Elf 'n' Safety" was blamed, as usual – the justification apparently was that someone might drop a baby in a hot bath. Can't anyone be empowered to bathe their own children any longer without state supervision??? Ridiculous, this absurd law should be repealed.
The law was brought in by an obscure amendment to Part G of the Building Regulations and came into effect on 6 April 2010 requiring all baths to have thermostatic mixing valves [TMV] restricting bath water to a temperature decided in Whitehall.
Why is this idea important?
Is it any business of the state how hot I like my bath water? Apparently yes! The last government forced through, without any publicity or consultation with the general public, a regulation making it a criminal offence to have a bath hotter than 48 degrees. How many people knew that? Since 6th April it has been illegal for anyone to sell or supply a bath or bath taps that would supply water hotter than a temperature decided by a government minister! At a stroke having separate 'hot' and 'cold' taps on new baths has been made a crime. If I want my bath hotter than the government thinks is adequate I'm not allowed one – 'government knows what's best for you'. Unbelievable! Can't we even be trusted to run a bath now without nanny state looking over our shoulder and lecturing us? "Elf 'n' Safety" was blamed, as usual – the justification apparently was that someone might drop a baby in a hot bath. Can't anyone be empowered to bathe their own children any longer without state supervision??? Ridiculous, this absurd law should be repealed.
The law was brought in by an obscure amendment to Part G of the Building Regulations and came into effect on 6 April 2010 requiring all baths to have thermostatic mixing valves [TMV] restricting bath water to a temperature decided in Whitehall.
Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.
Why is this idea important?
Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.