Right to choose smoking or non smoking

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

That those ideas which have received the most votes and comments specifically as regards the smoking ban) should not be dismissed in the new version.

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Why is this idea important?

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

that a public enquiry should be initiated regarding the smoking ban.

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

cannabisvote

put the use of cannabis to public vote.mr cameron you have tried it and now your pm.what harm has it done you..there is no control over it but there could be…..

,

Why is this idea important?

put the use of cannabis to public vote.mr cameron you have tried it and now your pm.what harm has it done you..there is no control over it but there could be…..

,

revoke The Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008

To revoke The Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008 as it was in direct opposition to the democratic wishes of the people of Northumberland expressed in the 2004 referendum. The order also specifically states that the Secretary of State did not seek advice from professional advisors prior to making the order nor did the Secretary of State consult the electorate in Northumberland. To be remined more than 50% of the electorate voted in the referendum and the majority were against a single unitary authority.

Why is this idea important?

To revoke The Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008 as it was in direct opposition to the democratic wishes of the people of Northumberland expressed in the 2004 referendum. The order also specifically states that the Secretary of State did not seek advice from professional advisors prior to making the order nor did the Secretary of State consult the electorate in Northumberland. To be remined more than 50% of the electorate voted in the referendum and the majority were against a single unitary authority.

veto poll by public referendum on any subject

This is basically the Swiss system where the British public can have a vote to approve or veto any law or proposal on any subject and their decision takes precedence over any other law or decision made in either the UK or any other place.

Why is this idea important?

This is basically the Swiss system where the British public can have a vote to approve or veto any law or proposal on any subject and their decision takes precedence over any other law or decision made in either the UK or any other place.

Referendum website

There are so many things that we think we need or not as the case maybe, why not have a referendum website where awkward things that affect us all are virtually voted upon so that some ideas maybe generated for ministers to look at:

For instance:

Always a controversial one, bring back hanging

Should MEP's be paid much more than their counterparts in our own country

Should horse owners whose animals foul the roads and paths be fined if they do not clear it up, look at dogs and they are tiny in comparison to them.

 

To give you some concept of what i mean, not necessarily a view either way on these things

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are so many things that we think we need or not as the case maybe, why not have a referendum website where awkward things that affect us all are virtually voted upon so that some ideas maybe generated for ministers to look at:

For instance:

Always a controversial one, bring back hanging

Should MEP's be paid much more than their counterparts in our own country

Should horse owners whose animals foul the roads and paths be fined if they do not clear it up, look at dogs and they are tiny in comparison to them.

 

To give you some concept of what i mean, not necessarily a view either way on these things

 

 

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Let’s join Norway, Switzerland and Russia outside the EU

Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act so we can leave the EU. It's always mentioned that Norway and Switzerland are both extremely prosperous European nations outside the European Union but no one ever mentions Russia as a successful non EU nation. The Russians and their Red Army did a fantastic job – as did Britain and America – in overcoming German led European Unionism in World War 2. We might once again need help from the Americans and Russians to break the stranglehold that the German dominated EU now has on our country unless we leave the EU now.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act so we can leave the EU. It's always mentioned that Norway and Switzerland are both extremely prosperous European nations outside the European Union but no one ever mentions Russia as a successful non EU nation. The Russians and their Red Army did a fantastic job – as did Britain and America – in overcoming German led European Unionism in World War 2. We might once again need help from the Americans and Russians to break the stranglehold that the German dominated EU now has on our country unless we leave the EU now.

Offer the electorate a Referendum on Capital Punishment

The only way to reduce the high volume of serious crimes is to have in place realistic deterrents – either substantial custodial sentences (where life means life)  or preferably capital punishment for murder, deaths caused by terrorists etc. Since CP was abolished advances in forsensic science would minimise miscarriges of justice and at the same time prison places would be reduced thus saving the related costs of keeping prisoners during their sentence. When the referendum on the voting system takes place in May 2011 why not add issue this to the voting paper and give the electorate a free vote on this issue. The new Government are keen to consult so why not let the people decide?

Why is this idea important?

The only way to reduce the high volume of serious crimes is to have in place realistic deterrents – either substantial custodial sentences (where life means life)  or preferably capital punishment for murder, deaths caused by terrorists etc. Since CP was abolished advances in forsensic science would minimise miscarriges of justice and at the same time prison places would be reduced thus saving the related costs of keeping prisoners during their sentence. When the referendum on the voting system takes place in May 2011 why not add issue this to the voting paper and give the electorate a free vote on this issue. The new Government are keen to consult so why not let the people decide?

Bring back the cane to restore order in schools

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Why is this idea important?

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Assault or not??

My idea is that THE PUBLIC should decide by referendum what constitutes assault. e.g i do not think that a single 'slap' with an open hand against someone should be instantly classified as an assault ( repeatedly yes ). but that is jus one persons ( i.e mine ) opinion.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that THE PUBLIC should decide by referendum what constitutes assault. e.g i do not think that a single 'slap' with an open hand against someone should be instantly classified as an assault ( repeatedly yes ). but that is jus one persons ( i.e mine ) opinion.

National referendum on staying in the EU to be legally binding on the government

The government should hold a national referendum on our EU membership and the result should be legally binding on the government.
This country joined the EU on the understanding that it meant an end to trade restrictions and would allow free movement in the member countries.
That has now changed and Brussels dictates 75% of our laws and is becoming an undemocratic super state.
 
The UK public should be asked once and for all.
 
1.If they wish to leave the EU altogether.
2.Keep things as they are.
3.Remain a trading partner but opt out of everything else like Norway & Switzerland.
 
The majority decision should be binding on the government. There is no legal reason why we can't leave or become an associated trading partner.

Why is this idea important?

The government should hold a national referendum on our EU membership and the result should be legally binding on the government.
This country joined the EU on the understanding that it meant an end to trade restrictions and would allow free movement in the member countries.
That has now changed and Brussels dictates 75% of our laws and is becoming an undemocratic super state.
 
The UK public should be asked once and for all.
 
1.If they wish to leave the EU altogether.
2.Keep things as they are.
3.Remain a trading partner but opt out of everything else like Norway & Switzerland.
 
The majority decision should be binding on the government. There is no legal reason why we can't leave or become an associated trading partner.

Regular referenda on EU/ NATO/UN/WTO membership

The Uk maintains membership of the EU, NATO, UN, and WTO without consulting the people as to whether they want to retain the UK's membership of these organisations.

Why is this idea important?

The Uk maintains membership of the EU, NATO, UN, and WTO without consulting the people as to whether they want to retain the UK's membership of these organisations.

Bill of rights. Allow the people to vote on their laws.

Rather than relying on a few gentlemen and ladies, who have never lived on the poverty line, the vote to pass laws that involve us all. The votes should be made public, We all have to live in the UK, and abide by the laws of the land, so we should be given a say.

This website is a wonderful idea, a chance for us to have a say. But i feel that it should be made a regular day to day thing. Part of our lives, children should be raised to believe that 1 day their voices will be heard too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Rather than relying on a few gentlemen and ladies, who have never lived on the poverty line, the vote to pass laws that involve us all. The votes should be made public, We all have to live in the UK, and abide by the laws of the land, so we should be given a say.

This website is a wonderful idea, a chance for us to have a say. But i feel that it should be made a regular day to day thing. Part of our lives, children should be raised to believe that 1 day their voices will be heard too.

 

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Foxhunting

The Labour Government spent a lot of time introducing the foxhunting ban amid much opposition. The Conservative Government is planning to repeal the ban which will also have much opposition.

Instead of this why not kill the issue once and for all by giving us a referendum. I'm quite sure we all individually know how we feel about this and could deliver a decisive result we would all have to respect. It would also take the party politics out of the issue.

The referendum could be held at the same time as the proposed referendum on voting reform and I think would lead to a big turnout.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour Government spent a lot of time introducing the foxhunting ban amid much opposition. The Conservative Government is planning to repeal the ban which will also have much opposition.

Instead of this why not kill the issue once and for all by giving us a referendum. I'm quite sure we all individually know how we feel about this and could deliver a decisive result we would all have to respect. It would also take the party politics out of the issue.

The referendum could be held at the same time as the proposed referendum on voting reform and I think would lead to a big turnout.

Lets have a referendum on the Death Penalty.

I understand that this subject invokes a great deal of emotion in people, and that most of us will have particularly strong views either way. That said, I have always believed that a referendum has been consistently blocked by the Government because the outcome will be a resounding, "Yes, bring it back!!" A public debate on this issue followed by a referendum is really the only way that this matter can be resolved.

I have never understood why we allow certain criminals to live. The lockerbie bomber for example. He killed  243 passengers and 16 crew members. Allowing individuals like this to live is a national disgrace nevermind letting him go!). When we have cases of parents allowing their children to starve to death only to receive a 7 year sentence then something needs to be done. What kind of country have we become? There is little point in going through every reason as to why we should bring it back, that's the whole point of a public debate followed by a referendum.

Why is this idea important?

I understand that this subject invokes a great deal of emotion in people, and that most of us will have particularly strong views either way. That said, I have always believed that a referendum has been consistently blocked by the Government because the outcome will be a resounding, "Yes, bring it back!!" A public debate on this issue followed by a referendum is really the only way that this matter can be resolved.

I have never understood why we allow certain criminals to live. The lockerbie bomber for example. He killed  243 passengers and 16 crew members. Allowing individuals like this to live is a national disgrace nevermind letting him go!). When we have cases of parents allowing their children to starve to death only to receive a 7 year sentence then something needs to be done. What kind of country have we become? There is little point in going through every reason as to why we should bring it back, that's the whole point of a public debate followed by a referendum.

Bring back cane in schools

Well having been to school when the cane was used,i think it did not do any of us any harm,but did get us to respect teachers,and the police etc.I would also like to see anyone with a job,or full time eduction over the age of 18 years,should be called up to the army or one of the forces.

Why is this idea important?

Well having been to school when the cane was used,i think it did not do any of us any harm,but did get us to respect teachers,and the police etc.I would also like to see anyone with a job,or full time eduction over the age of 18 years,should be called up to the army or one of the forces.

Allow England to vote on Scottish Devolution.

It not only many Scots that want to see Scotland go it alone as a fully independent state, a large number of us English are fed up of subsidising Scotland. The fact of the matter is Scotland (per head) takes far more out of the UK than it puts in yet there is constant bleating about its north sea oil and been ruled by westminster.

So lets have a referendum on both sides of the border as to whether the Scots want to be independent and if the English want rid of them. 

Why is this idea important?

It not only many Scots that want to see Scotland go it alone as a fully independent state, a large number of us English are fed up of subsidising Scotland. The fact of the matter is Scotland (per head) takes far more out of the UK than it puts in yet there is constant bleating about its north sea oil and been ruled by westminster.

So lets have a referendum on both sides of the border as to whether the Scots want to be independent and if the English want rid of them. 

Hold a Referendum on EU Membership on May 5, 2011 — Same Day as Referendum on Change in UK Governance

A referendum on whether or not to change Britain's electoral system to the alternative vote will be held on 5 May 2011, Deputy PM Nick Clegg will announce next week according to widespread reports.

This would be the ideal time to also as UK citizens the simple question that both the Labour and Tory governments have promised they would ask us, which, in essence, is:  

Do you want the UK to remain a member of the European Union?

Why is this idea important?

A referendum on whether or not to change Britain's electoral system to the alternative vote will be held on 5 May 2011, Deputy PM Nick Clegg will announce next week according to widespread reports.

This would be the ideal time to also as UK citizens the simple question that both the Labour and Tory governments have promised they would ask us, which, in essence, is:  

Do you want the UK to remain a member of the European Union?