Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Tax Margin Stacking – Reform of Tax

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

Why is this idea important?

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

Council Tax reform

Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.

 

having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.

 

I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.

Why is this idea important?

Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.

 

having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.

 

I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.

Start again from scratch

The idea of this government is a good one, but what matters to you ( votes ) doesn't really matter to us. We want CHANGE. We want the ball to start rolling on our ideas. Realise that your subjective opinions are foolish and go with the objective evidence in making new laws happen.

This country is a shambles because YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

So please, destroy the government and start again from scratch and take what people say to you seriously.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU ANYMORE.

Why is this idea important?

The idea of this government is a good one, but what matters to you ( votes ) doesn't really matter to us. We want CHANGE. We want the ball to start rolling on our ideas. Realise that your subjective opinions are foolish and go with the objective evidence in making new laws happen.

This country is a shambles because YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

So please, destroy the government and start again from scratch and take what people say to you seriously.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE GOVERNED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU ANYMORE.

CRB checks

If you want to axe an absurdly bureaucratic systerm, read on…

I would like to see a rational, radical reform of the CRB system.  As a teacher I have filled out more CRB forms than I care to count, most of which have contained identical information. I say “most” because I have just received a new form from a teaching agency I have just signed up with, which demands even more intrusive personal data.

 I have lived at the same address for almost 14 years, never changed my name, never been in trouble with the police, held a valid and unblemished UK driving licence and a UK passport for over 40 years… and every time I fill out one of these forms I become more disillusioned with our society. Once upon a time it was enough to say who you were: whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

 This system was I believe introduced as a result of “Soham”. Perhaps it has prevented repeats, or perhaps we have been lucky.

 Why is it that a CRB clearance issued to one organization is not valid for another? I have had concurrent CRBs for Hants CC, Surrey CC, the Scouts, various teacher supply agencies, etc.: I could paper my walls with them.  And yet if I had stayed with the same employer all my teaching life I would presumably have one at most. Would that have made me a better person or proved my lack of criminal habits?

 If we must have this obnoxious system, surely it is possible to create a central database which all bona fide organizations could interrogate? Once I am on the system, surely any changes to my behaviour or status can be recorded and checked – which I gather they are every time I fill out another form?

 At a time when you are busy cutting all the posts and programmes you can lay your hands on, surely this one is ripe for surgery? Or is it inviolate because it is actually a source of revenue?

 Do all those people who spend their time typing my information onto the database actually make money for the government?

Could they be doing something useful?

Why is this idea important?

If you want to axe an absurdly bureaucratic systerm, read on…

I would like to see a rational, radical reform of the CRB system.  As a teacher I have filled out more CRB forms than I care to count, most of which have contained identical information. I say “most” because I have just received a new form from a teaching agency I have just signed up with, which demands even more intrusive personal data.

 I have lived at the same address for almost 14 years, never changed my name, never been in trouble with the police, held a valid and unblemished UK driving licence and a UK passport for over 40 years… and every time I fill out one of these forms I become more disillusioned with our society. Once upon a time it was enough to say who you were: whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?

 This system was I believe introduced as a result of “Soham”. Perhaps it has prevented repeats, or perhaps we have been lucky.

 Why is it that a CRB clearance issued to one organization is not valid for another? I have had concurrent CRBs for Hants CC, Surrey CC, the Scouts, various teacher supply agencies, etc.: I could paper my walls with them.  And yet if I had stayed with the same employer all my teaching life I would presumably have one at most. Would that have made me a better person or proved my lack of criminal habits?

 If we must have this obnoxious system, surely it is possible to create a central database which all bona fide organizations could interrogate? Once I am on the system, surely any changes to my behaviour or status can be recorded and checked – which I gather they are every time I fill out another form?

 At a time when you are busy cutting all the posts and programmes you can lay your hands on, surely this one is ripe for surgery? Or is it inviolate because it is actually a source of revenue?

 Do all those people who spend their time typing my information onto the database actually make money for the government?

Could they be doing something useful?

Employment and Privacy on Convictions

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

Why is this idea important?

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Repeal of Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 and Section 7 of the Childrens Act 1989: abolition of CAFCASS.

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Why is this idea important?

 

"I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it."
Sir Bob Geldhof, Forward to the Custody Minefield Report Report,  "Relocation and Leave to Remove", December 2009.
 
Many of these inadequate practitioners work for The Children and Family Court Advisory and Supervisory Service (CAFCASS). CAFCASS was established under Sections 11-17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. In private law they mainly provide reports under Section 7 of the Children's Act 1989, the welfare report. CAFCASS also took over the role of the Official Solicitor in representing children party to proceedings, as Legal Guardians, in mainly public and in some private law cases.
 
In private law, it is time to give up on Section 7 of the Children’s Act 1989 and abolish CAFCASS along with it. In private law proceedings, if there are matters raised which are sufficiently serious to warrant a welfare investigation, the case should be moved to public law with the local authority to carry out the investigation. The welfare investigation should then be made to the timescales and standards of a S.47 and Core Assessment (35 days). As an alternative, independent experts could be jointly instructed and paid for by parties or, when appropriate, through Legal Aid. It is a measure of the inadequacy of CAFCASS that in the vast majority of cases it would work out cheaper to pay £2,000 for a reliable report in four weeks than wait six to nine months for CAFCASS to produce an inadequate one. 
 
In public law, children would be better represented by people who know and understand them and can express their views, preferably drawn from their wider family or community and if necessary from the voluntary sector. It does not require the inadequate practitioners from a state service.  
 
There is no need for CAFCASS at all. 

Scrap all QUANGOS?

Where quangos are ultimately accountable I see no reason for ALL quangos to be abolished.

Where quangos represent 'jobs for the boys', where the constituants are unfamiliar with the requiremnts of the position held or they are unaccountable; yes they should be abolished. 

One particular 'quango', though I am sure they would reject this appelation, is a body of senior civil servants who have day time jobs but also advise the Honours and Decorations Committee.  This committee rarely meets, and most business is conducted by phone, email, letter and perhaps in the tea room.  Five of this Committee are also, in fact, advisers to the Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Cabinet Office and advises Her Majesty via Her Majesty's Private Secretary. 

They are answerable, so they say, only to Her Majesty. They do not, apparently, answer to a democratically  elected Government.  There does seem to be a large number of cases where, in my opinion, the Royal Prerogative is impoperly used.  If they are challenge they constantly move the 'goalposts' and, indeed had a special Part C added to the new rules which were placed in the House of Commons Library which precluded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia from being worn, despite the fact that it was accepted by Her Majesty on behalf of 35,000 veterans and is merely a departmental rule which apparently has precedence over the London Gazette 5057 dated 3 May 1968, still extant, and the Joint Service Publication 761, paragraph 21.

I belong, proudly, to an organisation that has been fighting for justice for over four years. The then Foreign Minister(2005) asked for a review of the rules which governed the Award of  Commonwealth and Foreign a,wards and decoration.  After 12 months the H&D Committee returned with new rules and the  above mentioned Part C. During the run up to the election we were promised a review of what was seen as inconsistanly or randomly applied rules.  One member of our campaign recently wrote to his 'new' MP who wrote to the appropriate Minister, who then replied with all the nonsense, obfuscation and downright misleading information that they have given to Ministers and MPs over the last  four years.  We had hoped for something more substantial than it being passed to the same civil servants, who, of course, replied with the outdated and arguable facts regarding double meddaling, and one medal for each campaign.

What I ask this new, Coalition Government for, is an independent review and enquiry into what purpose all these people serve.  They must of course be prepared to challenge the agenda of them and where necessary ask them to justify 4 years of corresponding with the campaigners which, incidentally, they have now refused to do.

Why is this idea important?

Where quangos are ultimately accountable I see no reason for ALL quangos to be abolished.

Where quangos represent 'jobs for the boys', where the constituants are unfamiliar with the requiremnts of the position held or they are unaccountable; yes they should be abolished. 

One particular 'quango', though I am sure they would reject this appelation, is a body of senior civil servants who have day time jobs but also advise the Honours and Decorations Committee.  This committee rarely meets, and most business is conducted by phone, email, letter and perhaps in the tea room.  Five of this Committee are also, in fact, advisers to the Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Cabinet Office and advises Her Majesty via Her Majesty's Private Secretary. 

They are answerable, so they say, only to Her Majesty. They do not, apparently, answer to a democratically  elected Government.  There does seem to be a large number of cases where, in my opinion, the Royal Prerogative is impoperly used.  If they are challenge they constantly move the 'goalposts' and, indeed had a special Part C added to the new rules which were placed in the House of Commons Library which precluded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia from being worn, despite the fact that it was accepted by Her Majesty on behalf of 35,000 veterans and is merely a departmental rule which apparently has precedence over the London Gazette 5057 dated 3 May 1968, still extant, and the Joint Service Publication 761, paragraph 21.

I belong, proudly, to an organisation that has been fighting for justice for over four years. The then Foreign Minister(2005) asked for a review of the rules which governed the Award of  Commonwealth and Foreign a,wards and decoration.  After 12 months the H&D Committee returned with new rules and the  above mentioned Part C. During the run up to the election we were promised a review of what was seen as inconsistanly or randomly applied rules.  One member of our campaign recently wrote to his 'new' MP who wrote to the appropriate Minister, who then replied with all the nonsense, obfuscation and downright misleading information that they have given to Ministers and MPs over the last  four years.  We had hoped for something more substantial than it being passed to the same civil servants, who, of course, replied with the outdated and arguable facts regarding double meddaling, and one medal for each campaign.

What I ask this new, Coalition Government for, is an independent review and enquiry into what purpose all these people serve.  They must of course be prepared to challenge the agenda of them and where necessary ask them to justify 4 years of corresponding with the campaigners which, incidentally, they have now refused to do.

Helping Prisoners Reform Their Lives

Contact with animals is beneficial for most people.  Prisons often have a large amount of land and a lot of people with time on their hands.  Animal sanctuaries are often short of money, help and space.  Why not let prisoners look after unwanted animals until they can be re-homed.  They would pick up useful skills, and enjoy the unconditional affection provided by the animals.

Why is this idea important?

Contact with animals is beneficial for most people.  Prisons often have a large amount of land and a lot of people with time on their hands.  Animal sanctuaries are often short of money, help and space.  Why not let prisoners look after unwanted animals until they can be re-homed.  They would pick up useful skills, and enjoy the unconditional affection provided by the animals.

Amendments to Digital Economy Act 2010

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Why is this idea important?

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Issue a Card for Benefits (no Cash)

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Why is this idea important?

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

MPs Expenses & Renumeration

MPs pay & expenses should be overhauled to prevent ANY possibility of abuse. Therefore taking the Lewis's Partnership idea on board backbench MPs should get a fixed salary equal to 10 times the minimum wage, the PM should get 20 times & ministers, committee chairmen etc a range from 11 to 19 times.

A "Parliamentary Transport Department" should be created whose remit is to organise & pay for MPs travel requirements from constituency address to House of Commons & back (only) at the CHEAPEST possible cost.

A "Parliamentary Accommodation Department" should be created whose remit is to purchase & maintain an apartment block & allocate each MP an apartment.

Each MP should be allocated a Personal Assistant, employed directly by government, preventing the scandal of employing friends & relatives on spurious duties. They will be allowed to employ such people – but at their own expense – not ours.

These changes would mean that MPs are suitably rewarded financially, with an eye on the poorest in the UK, together with an inability to claim anything, thereby restoring public confidence.

Why is this idea important?

MPs pay & expenses should be overhauled to prevent ANY possibility of abuse. Therefore taking the Lewis's Partnership idea on board backbench MPs should get a fixed salary equal to 10 times the minimum wage, the PM should get 20 times & ministers, committee chairmen etc a range from 11 to 19 times.

A "Parliamentary Transport Department" should be created whose remit is to organise & pay for MPs travel requirements from constituency address to House of Commons & back (only) at the CHEAPEST possible cost.

A "Parliamentary Accommodation Department" should be created whose remit is to purchase & maintain an apartment block & allocate each MP an apartment.

Each MP should be allocated a Personal Assistant, employed directly by government, preventing the scandal of employing friends & relatives on spurious duties. They will be allowed to employ such people – but at their own expense – not ours.

These changes would mean that MPs are suitably rewarded financially, with an eye on the poorest in the UK, together with an inability to claim anything, thereby restoring public confidence.

ROOT OUT AND EXTRACT CORRUPT JUDICIARY OF THE OLD POLICE STATE REGIME

I AM A MAGISTRATE APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

THE CROWN COURT WAS DOMINATED AT THE TIME – IN 2007 – BY THREE JUDGES ONE OF THEM NASTY, MEAN, EVIL – I MET IN PRISON A LAD WHOM HE GAVE 8 YEARS FOR SHOPLIFTING

THESE WERE NASTY, EVIL, MEAN PEOPLE EMPOWERED AS JUDGES

TO REDUCE THE PRISON POPULATION YOU NEED A NEW GENERATION OF JUDGES – MODERN AND REHABILITATION-MINDED-HELPFUL

THE JUDGES WE HAVE AND HAD ARE OLD, OLD VICTORIAN ENGLAND – MEDIEVAL AND DARK AGES

MY IDEA IS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE CORRUPTION OF JUDGES AND ABUSE COULD BE EXPOSED AND ACTED UPON

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE OR ACT ON CORRUPTION AND ABUSE

Why is this idea important?

I AM A MAGISTRATE APPLICANT TO WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

THE CROWN COURT WAS DOMINATED AT THE TIME – IN 2007 – BY THREE JUDGES ONE OF THEM NASTY, MEAN, EVIL – I MET IN PRISON A LAD WHOM HE GAVE 8 YEARS FOR SHOPLIFTING

THESE WERE NASTY, EVIL, MEAN PEOPLE EMPOWERED AS JUDGES

TO REDUCE THE PRISON POPULATION YOU NEED A NEW GENERATION OF JUDGES – MODERN AND REHABILITATION-MINDED-HELPFUL

THE JUDGES WE HAVE AND HAD ARE OLD, OLD VICTORIAN ENGLAND – MEDIEVAL AND DARK AGES

MY IDEA IS TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE CORRUPTION OF JUDGES AND ABUSE COULD BE EXPOSED AND ACTED UPON

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE OR ACT ON CORRUPTION AND ABUSE

Train and appriase public sector employees on commercial practices

1) The personal objectives of public sector administrators, junior managers and above should include how commercial they have been  

2) Basic online training videos should be provided for employees covering what the appropriate commerical cultural values are and technical awareness of best commercial practices e.g. how to manage supplier relationships, how to specify supplier requirements, how to conduct fair and open supplier tenders etc.

Nothing gold plated is needed – videos can be published on youtube  with a maximum budget of £100k (based on experience, this is enough to produce a series of training videos ).  It will pay back thousands of times over with results starting immediately.

Why is this idea important?

1) The personal objectives of public sector administrators, junior managers and above should include how commercial they have been  

2) Basic online training videos should be provided for employees covering what the appropriate commerical cultural values are and technical awareness of best commercial practices e.g. how to manage supplier relationships, how to specify supplier requirements, how to conduct fair and open supplier tenders etc.

Nothing gold plated is needed – videos can be published on youtube  with a maximum budget of £100k (based on experience, this is enough to produce a series of training videos ).  It will pay back thousands of times over with results starting immediately.

Devolved administrations

When EU regulations are brought in, have one version for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently we have 4 versions, one for each country. An EU regulation, as opposed to a directive, must be put into a countries law without being changed so it is a waste of time and money having a version for each country.

Why is this idea important?

When EU regulations are brought in, have one version for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently we have 4 versions, one for each country. An EU regulation, as opposed to a directive, must be put into a countries law without being changed so it is a waste of time and money having a version for each country.

Reform the justice system

Prisons

The whole prison and justice system needs to be overhauled urgently. This government seems to think that not all crime is serious when in actually fact the word crime should speak for itself – it is an illegal activity.

The reason why prison does not work is that it is far too soft and prisoners seem to have more human rights than law abiding citizens and their own victims. Therefore I have listed several ideas for toughening up the prisons,

  • Take away games consoles, TV’s and computer access
  • Cut down the amount of social access that criminals enjoy thus preventing gangs forming and drugs trafficking
  • Prisons should be run by the guards not the prisoners
  • Two people to a cell and meals served in the cell reducing contact with other prisoners and reducing the risk of violent conduct
  • No visiting rights, only contact by letters and no telephone calls.
  • Only visits from legal representatives allowed when appeals are in process.
  • Prisons should not be a rehabilitation centre, it should be a punishment and rehabilitation sessions should be carried out at the completion of sentencing
  • There should be no such thing as parole, early release or days and weekend releases. A prisoners should serve the whole sentence handed down by the courts.

Capital punishment

It is so costly to keep prisoners who are a danger to society and should never be allowed out of prison. We are talking about, murders, serial rapists, paedophiles and terrorists, it is about time, that the government sent a clear message to these people, by reintroducing capital punishment.

many people on this site, advocate a public referendum on this issue, to be added to the referendum in May 2011, and I and my family are no different in this opinion.

not the American system where people are kept on death row for years, and if all forensic evidence is consistent, and the crimes proved without doubt, these offenders should be executed within no more than one month.

Too often we allow these people out, to re offend and cause devastation to many families , also they are not only costly to keep, but also seem to be the section most willing to sue the government for beeches of their Human Rights, this is ridiculous, when you see the devastation they cause to society.

Why is this idea important?

Prisons

The whole prison and justice system needs to be overhauled urgently. This government seems to think that not all crime is serious when in actually fact the word crime should speak for itself – it is an illegal activity.

The reason why prison does not work is that it is far too soft and prisoners seem to have more human rights than law abiding citizens and their own victims. Therefore I have listed several ideas for toughening up the prisons,

  • Take away games consoles, TV’s and computer access
  • Cut down the amount of social access that criminals enjoy thus preventing gangs forming and drugs trafficking
  • Prisons should be run by the guards not the prisoners
  • Two people to a cell and meals served in the cell reducing contact with other prisoners and reducing the risk of violent conduct
  • No visiting rights, only contact by letters and no telephone calls.
  • Only visits from legal representatives allowed when appeals are in process.
  • Prisons should not be a rehabilitation centre, it should be a punishment and rehabilitation sessions should be carried out at the completion of sentencing
  • There should be no such thing as parole, early release or days and weekend releases. A prisoners should serve the whole sentence handed down by the courts.

Capital punishment

It is so costly to keep prisoners who are a danger to society and should never be allowed out of prison. We are talking about, murders, serial rapists, paedophiles and terrorists, it is about time, that the government sent a clear message to these people, by reintroducing capital punishment.

many people on this site, advocate a public referendum on this issue, to be added to the referendum in May 2011, and I and my family are no different in this opinion.

not the American system where people are kept on death row for years, and if all forensic evidence is consistent, and the crimes proved without doubt, these offenders should be executed within no more than one month.

Too often we allow these people out, to re offend and cause devastation to many families , also they are not only costly to keep, but also seem to be the section most willing to sue the government for beeches of their Human Rights, this is ridiculous, when you see the devastation they cause to society.

Reform the justice system

Prisons

The whole prison and justice system needs to be overhauled urgently. This government seems to think that not all crime is serious when in actually fact the word crime should speak for itself – it is an illegal activity.

The reason why prison does not work is that it is far too soft and prisoners seem to have more human rights than law abiding citizens and their own victims. Therefore I have listed several ideas for toughening up the prisons,

  • Take away games consoles, TV’s and computer access
  • Cut down the amount of social access that criminals enjoy thus preventing gangs forming and drugs trafficking
  • Prisons should be run by the guards not the prisoners
  • Two people to a cell and meals served in the cell reducing contact with other prisoners and reducing the risk of violent conduct
  • No visiting rights, only contact by letters and no telephone calls.
  • Only visits from legal representatives allowed when appeals are in process.
  • Prisons should not be a rehabilitation centre, it should be a punishment and rehabilitation sessions should be carried out at the completion of sentencing
  • There should be no such thing as parole, early release or days and weekend releases. A prisoners should serve the whole sentence handed down by the courts.

Capital punishment

It is so costly to keep prisoners who are a danger to society and should never be allowed out of prison. We are talking about, murders, serial rapists, paedophiles and terrorists, it is about time, that the government sent a clear message to these people, by reintroducing capital punishment.

many people on this site, advocate a public referendum on this issue, to be added to the referendum in May 2011, and I and my family are no different in this opinion.

not the American system where people are kept on death row for years, and if all forensic evidence is consistent, and the crimes proved without doubt, these offenders should be executed within no more than one month.

Too often we allow these people out, to re offend and cause devastation to many families , also they are not only costly to keep, but also seem to be the section most willing to sue the government for beeches of their Human Rights, this is ridiculous, when you see the devastation they cause to society.

Why is this idea important?

Prisons

The whole prison and justice system needs to be overhauled urgently. This government seems to think that not all crime is serious when in actually fact the word crime should speak for itself – it is an illegal activity.

The reason why prison does not work is that it is far too soft and prisoners seem to have more human rights than law abiding citizens and their own victims. Therefore I have listed several ideas for toughening up the prisons,

  • Take away games consoles, TV’s and computer access
  • Cut down the amount of social access that criminals enjoy thus preventing gangs forming and drugs trafficking
  • Prisons should be run by the guards not the prisoners
  • Two people to a cell and meals served in the cell reducing contact with other prisoners and reducing the risk of violent conduct
  • No visiting rights, only contact by letters and no telephone calls.
  • Only visits from legal representatives allowed when appeals are in process.
  • Prisons should not be a rehabilitation centre, it should be a punishment and rehabilitation sessions should be carried out at the completion of sentencing
  • There should be no such thing as parole, early release or days and weekend releases. A prisoners should serve the whole sentence handed down by the courts.

Capital punishment

It is so costly to keep prisoners who are a danger to society and should never be allowed out of prison. We are talking about, murders, serial rapists, paedophiles and terrorists, it is about time, that the government sent a clear message to these people, by reintroducing capital punishment.

many people on this site, advocate a public referendum on this issue, to be added to the referendum in May 2011, and I and my family are no different in this opinion.

not the American system where people are kept on death row for years, and if all forensic evidence is consistent, and the crimes proved without doubt, these offenders should be executed within no more than one month.

Too often we allow these people out, to re offend and cause devastation to many families , also they are not only costly to keep, but also seem to be the section most willing to sue the government for beeches of their Human Rights, this is ridiculous, when you see the devastation they cause to society.

Proportional voting for elections

We need to change our Voting systems for the UK General Election, Local Elections and also vote for the House of Lords. This is our country, our politics and our vote. The citizens need to be represented fairly and equally. We need to avoid systems that enables tactical voting as the smaller parties are not recognised in the results.

Why is this idea important?

We need to change our Voting systems for the UK General Election, Local Elections and also vote for the House of Lords. This is our country, our politics and our vote. The citizens need to be represented fairly and equally. We need to avoid systems that enables tactical voting as the smaller parties are not recognised in the results.

Motion Pertaining To The Legalisation Of Cannabis.

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

Why is this idea important?

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

Public Sector economic, efficient, and effective spending efficiencies

Public Sector Costs Reductions without threatening standards of essential and desirable services deliveries by authorising vetted Arms Length Inspectors(-with ENHANCED CRB Check Certificates) from outside the public sector to visit without notice for optimum verification of all claims and reports.

Re-appraisal of re-introducing The Rate of Return on/of Capital Employed for some Performance Measurement in The Public Sector.  The previous government abolished it in 1997/1998.  Note that the private secor has profit as some measure of performance but the public sector has NOTHING comparable.

Arrest continuing wastages of public funds within The NHS; and, misappropriations of Overseas Aid by corrupt recipient governments.   Re-appraise ringfencing and protecting both from cuts – this only condones continuations of mismanagement and maladministration.

Quangos such as local LINks which cannot demonstrate cost-effectiveness with added value contributions(-which the elected and appointed cannot do) should be shut down, particularly those which have been discreetly hijacked by agents for sellers of goods and services to the NHS and Social Services.

 

STRENGTHEN, ENCOURAGE, PROTECT STATUTORILY FUND, AND, REWARD ETHICAL WHISTLEBLOWERS.

Why is this idea important?

Public Sector Costs Reductions without threatening standards of essential and desirable services deliveries by authorising vetted Arms Length Inspectors(-with ENHANCED CRB Check Certificates) from outside the public sector to visit without notice for optimum verification of all claims and reports.

Re-appraisal of re-introducing The Rate of Return on/of Capital Employed for some Performance Measurement in The Public Sector.  The previous government abolished it in 1997/1998.  Note that the private secor has profit as some measure of performance but the public sector has NOTHING comparable.

Arrest continuing wastages of public funds within The NHS; and, misappropriations of Overseas Aid by corrupt recipient governments.   Re-appraise ringfencing and protecting both from cuts – this only condones continuations of mismanagement and maladministration.

Quangos such as local LINks which cannot demonstrate cost-effectiveness with added value contributions(-which the elected and appointed cannot do) should be shut down, particularly those which have been discreetly hijacked by agents for sellers of goods and services to the NHS and Social Services.

 

STRENGTHEN, ENCOURAGE, PROTECT STATUTORILY FUND, AND, REWARD ETHICAL WHISTLEBLOWERS.