Legalise walking and cycling through (some) red lights

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, most pedestrians and some cyclists care less about red lights, and more about whether the maneuvre (turn, crossing) will be safe to perform. This is completely sensible, and the law should be altered to reflect current realities. This is a bit like some US states which allow turning right even if the light is red.

As a starting point, some junctions could be equipped with a green man sign, showing that people (on foot, on bikes) can legally cross the junction if it is clear (as if there was no traffic light, give-way markings). This is like the Green Arrow in Germany, which legalises turning right (as per the US model).

Fact is, most junctions in towns only have traffic lights to regulate traffic volume, not for safety. In other words, it is straight-forward to see when it is safe to cross, and when not.

Stop reducing speed limits to quite inappropriate levels

Stop encouraging speed limits to be widely reduced as a general alleged contribution to road safety. Restore some common sense into the control of motorists and encourage better driving habits and better road engineering. Only the few law abiding motorists take much notice of, and hence suffer from, these silly speed limits and they suffer the wrath of those who seem to get away with taking little notice. Nobody seems to have recently read the Highway Code and they certainly do not observe it. For instance how many parents hold the hands of their children when walking them to school as required by the Highway Code. Also restore Police Traffic patrols with a mandate to warn and advise motorists except where driving behaviour is very dangerous.

IUt would also be a good idea to introduce differing speed limits eg higher speeeds overnight, reduced motorway speeds in the lane next to road works with say 10mph higher speeds in the adjoining lane. Lowwr speeds outside schools for the busy times only.

Why is this idea important?

Stop encouraging speed limits to be widely reduced as a general alleged contribution to road safety. Restore some common sense into the control of motorists and encourage better driving habits and better road engineering. Only the few law abiding motorists take much notice of, and hence suffer from, these silly speed limits and they suffer the wrath of those who seem to get away with taking little notice. Nobody seems to have recently read the Highway Code and they certainly do not observe it. For instance how many parents hold the hands of their children when walking them to school as required by the Highway Code. Also restore Police Traffic patrols with a mandate to warn and advise motorists except where driving behaviour is very dangerous.

IUt would also be a good idea to introduce differing speed limits eg higher speeeds overnight, reduced motorway speeds in the lane next to road works with say 10mph higher speeds in the adjoining lane. Lowwr speeds outside schools for the busy times only.

Double Yellow Lines – who parks on them?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Why is this idea important?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Civil Contingences

Repeal the Labour Govt Bill. Replace it with a more strictly prescribed "Emergency powers Act" with provision for judicial scrutiny before an Emergency can be declared

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Labour Govt Bill. Replace it with a more strictly prescribed "Emergency powers Act" with provision for judicial scrutiny before an Emergency can be declared

Using CCTV to catch motoring offences

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Why is this idea important?

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Reduce the requirements for micro-vehicles

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

Why is this idea important?

Why do people put up with never-ending traffic jams, lack of parking, inadequate road systems and general bad management just to use their cars?  Simple.  They don't have any choice because public transport is such a joke.

Now imagine if somebody were to bring the Sinclair C5 to market now, but fitted with a small engine in place of the electric motor.  You'd have a vehicle which could travel todays longer commutes, using cycle paths instead of roads, at sensible speed, and be able to park in the tiniest spaces.  And it would be economical – 250mpg?  Sounds good, no?

What about an even tinier machine, which was actually small enough to fold up and stick under your desk in the office.  Something like a kids scooter with a motor?  Or a powered pushbike which can fold.  Even better?  It's easily done.

But if you did produce such a machine, you'd never be able to use it on the roads.

Why?  Red tape.  It's classed as a motorbike.  At best, as a moped.

So, you need to be over 16 to use it.  You'd need tax, insurance, a driving license, probably a CBT bike test, an MOT, and a helmet.  In London, you'd probably also have to pay a congestion charge, even though you're producing far less emissions than the smug greeny in the Prius.

Which seems to be, frankly, ridiculous.

I suggest that we should permit such micro-vehicles to be treated as pushbikes.

You'd need limits on power output, engine size, maximum weight, design speed, etc. 
But such restrictions already exist for "electrically powered bicycles" and are nothing new.

Why not treat micro vehicles, with tiny/limited petrol/diesel engines and about the same power output as a bicycle in the same way?

 

This isn't a new idea, by the way.

Anybody remember the Cycle Master from the 50s?  Brilliant idea, British invention, perfect for adapting to a modern mountain bike – killed by short sighted bureaucrats.

Come on Nick, give us a real, genuine chance to get out of our cars. 
Not just a lot of glib waffle telling us to use buses that aren't there, or trains that only run when they want to, or electric bikes that cost £2000 and run out of electricity half-way home.

Parking tickets issued by post when cars are driven away.

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Why is this idea important?

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Rules for regulation of Cannabis Cultivation for personal use by adults in private

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Why is this idea important?

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Carer’s Allowance

It is very questionable that Carer's Allowance is withdrawn from carers when they receive their pension.

To then claim the right to prosecute these people if they fail to inform the department of any change to their life that would affect the money that they do not receive, were they were receiving it, is a total injustice and would have been a step too far for Big Brother.

Why is this idea important?

It is very questionable that Carer's Allowance is withdrawn from carers when they receive their pension.

To then claim the right to prosecute these people if they fail to inform the department of any change to their life that would affect the money that they do not receive, were they were receiving it, is a total injustice and would have been a step too far for Big Brother.

Reduce the Testing Requirements for new Drugs

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.

Why is this idea important?

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.

repeal compulsory licensing for all music

The lst licencing act in effect made it an offence punishible by a large fine for 'performing' music.  This included rehearsing at home, if a single person is listening, or playing the piano in a pub, or even playing a guitar out doors if someone appears to be listening.  Absolutely everyone has to obtain a licence, which costs hundreds of pounds.

The playing of amplified recorded music, TV or Videos is not covered, so it is illeagal in England and Wales to play accoustic music without a licence, but any premisis or house can play recorded music almost as loud as they like.

This licencing law should be replaced by a requiement for a licence based not on the presence of the musicians, but on the volume of noise generated – ie a guitarist singing quietly anywhere should be permitted, but anyone playing recorded music over a certain volume should obtain a licence.

Why is this idea important?

The lst licencing act in effect made it an offence punishible by a large fine for 'performing' music.  This included rehearsing at home, if a single person is listening, or playing the piano in a pub, or even playing a guitar out doors if someone appears to be listening.  Absolutely everyone has to obtain a licence, which costs hundreds of pounds.

The playing of amplified recorded music, TV or Videos is not covered, so it is illeagal in England and Wales to play accoustic music without a licence, but any premisis or house can play recorded music almost as loud as they like.

This licencing law should be replaced by a requiement for a licence based not on the presence of the musicians, but on the volume of noise generated – ie a guitarist singing quietly anywhere should be permitted, but anyone playing recorded music over a certain volume should obtain a licence.

Ofcom and telco charges

OFCOM makes decisions that are commercially ludicrous and it's power in the area of charges made by monopoly suppliers BT/Openreach, Virgin etc need to be curtailed such that re-sellers can hope to have some possibility of making a profit in the telecoms industry.

For example there is currently a charge made by BT of around £25 for disconnecting a broadband, user If a user moves and wants their broadband moving to a new line fees in excess of £70 are levied (Somehow BT can manage to transfer their phone line and number for no/very little cost)

A business reselling the service is supposed to pass these charges to the end user…., lets get real who has ever heard of a charge for discontinuing a service?, "excuse me Tesco, I won't be using your Stores again", "that's fine sir just pay a £25 fee"

The whole idea of charging someone to stop using a service is a nonsense, unenforceable(Except on the re-seller who needs to continue purchasing from the supplier) and any Regulator who lives in the real world would recognise this.

OFCOM needs major reform and small business awareness injecting into them

Why is this idea important?

OFCOM makes decisions that are commercially ludicrous and it's power in the area of charges made by monopoly suppliers BT/Openreach, Virgin etc need to be curtailed such that re-sellers can hope to have some possibility of making a profit in the telecoms industry.

For example there is currently a charge made by BT of around £25 for disconnecting a broadband, user If a user moves and wants their broadband moving to a new line fees in excess of £70 are levied (Somehow BT can manage to transfer their phone line and number for no/very little cost)

A business reselling the service is supposed to pass these charges to the end user…., lets get real who has ever heard of a charge for discontinuing a service?, "excuse me Tesco, I won't be using your Stores again", "that's fine sir just pay a £25 fee"

The whole idea of charging someone to stop using a service is a nonsense, unenforceable(Except on the re-seller who needs to continue purchasing from the supplier) and any Regulator who lives in the real world would recognise this.

OFCOM needs major reform and small business awareness injecting into them

Regulation is urgently needed for hairdressers and salons

There have been 338 salon-related injuries in salons in the past year.  Inexperienced and incompetent staff have caused serious injury and disfiguration through the misuse of dangerous toxic chemicals.  It seems absurd that anyone can declare themselves a hairdresser or beautician and that the business is not strictly regulated.  This is simply unacceptable and wrong.

 

Why is this idea important?

There have been 338 salon-related injuries in salons in the past year.  Inexperienced and incompetent staff have caused serious injury and disfiguration through the misuse of dangerous toxic chemicals.  It seems absurd that anyone can declare themselves a hairdresser or beautician and that the business is not strictly regulated.  This is simply unacceptable and wrong.

 

Ear tagging and tracing sheep

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Repeal the Trainee Driving Instructors Licence Act

The Trainee Driving Instructors act was supposed to be repealed in 2006 under the Road Safety Act as it was found to be unsatisfactory as it only lasts 6 months and cannot be renewed.  Whats is the point? Would you be happy with a tradesman of any kind who only had 6 months practical training, of course not. I think the licence should be scrapped altogether

Why is this idea important?

The Trainee Driving Instructors act was supposed to be repealed in 2006 under the Road Safety Act as it was found to be unsatisfactory as it only lasts 6 months and cannot be renewed.  Whats is the point? Would you be happy with a tradesman of any kind who only had 6 months practical training, of course not. I think the licence should be scrapped altogether

Reduce goverment depratment & public body red tape & regulation too!

It would be good to see the government willing to hear ideas on how it may amend its own regulation – based on the users of its services!

One area in which there is a ridiculous amount of red-tape is the HMRC tax credits system.

Having recently renewed my tax credit claim, I note that they sent two 6 page letters to my address (joint claim and both letters were sent in joint names) to inform me of the need to renew. When I phoned to renew I was informed they had carried out a credit check on me and that I must answer questions based on that check in order to access my account (they asked about my mobile phone and other payments I had recently made – what if I had not been certain of the amounts?!). I was then provided with 2 security questions for my account – not ones of my choosing, ones of their choosing…things they say apply to everyone and that everyone remembers!

What are my security questions?

1) What was my first ever holiday

2) what was the first film I ever saw at the cinema

Neither question was appropriate to me but answers to both are compulsory and must be remembered – if I forget the answers to these imposed questions (answers I had to make up because I didn't have genuine answers to give!) then my claim will be stopped and I will have to take my passport to my local tax office and request that they re-start my claim.

Finally, having successfully renewed my claim, I received a further 2 letters informing me of that fact.

This is a ridiculous set up and needs amendment – it would save both time and money.

This is only one example – I could give you a list as long as your arm of where savings could be made and where regulation needs to be amended!

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

It would be good to see the government willing to hear ideas on how it may amend its own regulation – based on the users of its services!

One area in which there is a ridiculous amount of red-tape is the HMRC tax credits system.

Having recently renewed my tax credit claim, I note that they sent two 6 page letters to my address (joint claim and both letters were sent in joint names) to inform me of the need to renew. When I phoned to renew I was informed they had carried out a credit check on me and that I must answer questions based on that check in order to access my account (they asked about my mobile phone and other payments I had recently made – what if I had not been certain of the amounts?!). I was then provided with 2 security questions for my account – not ones of my choosing, ones of their choosing…things they say apply to everyone and that everyone remembers!

What are my security questions?

1) What was my first ever holiday

2) what was the first film I ever saw at the cinema

Neither question was appropriate to me but answers to both are compulsory and must be remembered – if I forget the answers to these imposed questions (answers I had to make up because I didn't have genuine answers to give!) then my claim will be stopped and I will have to take my passport to my local tax office and request that they re-start my claim.

Finally, having successfully renewed my claim, I received a further 2 letters informing me of that fact.

This is a ridiculous set up and needs amendment – it would save both time and money.

This is only one example – I could give you a list as long as your arm of where savings could be made and where regulation needs to be amended!

 

 

 

Deficit Reduction Plan

My idea would be for the treasury/taxpayer to keep control of those banks where taxpayers have injected  funds into them. RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.  The taxpayer would want to see a return on their investment!

Encourage new customers from the Business sector or the General Public  to take up new accounts or transfer their business from other less 'lending' friendly Public or Business banks.

Run them as a type of credit union, where Businesses/Public invest to gain credit!

I would keep the majority of banks in the private sector, whilst using the competition from some 'state' owned banks to keep competition healthy, by loaning at reasonable rates.

Why is this idea important?

My idea would be for the treasury/taxpayer to keep control of those banks where taxpayers have injected  funds into them. RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.  The taxpayer would want to see a return on their investment!

Encourage new customers from the Business sector or the General Public  to take up new accounts or transfer their business from other less 'lending' friendly Public or Business banks.

Run them as a type of credit union, where Businesses/Public invest to gain credit!

I would keep the majority of banks in the private sector, whilst using the competition from some 'state' owned banks to keep competition healthy, by loaning at reasonable rates.

Health and Safety

Health and Safety continues to be used as a means of preventing individuals from taking a personal, risk based approach to their individual lives.  Whilst I understand the need for key H&S controls to be mandated across the nations, I feel that the H&S agenda has become all pervasive and would like to see a review with a focus on simplifying and restricting the legislation in this area.  I think allowing individuals more personal freedoms strengthen their personal understanding and assessment of H&S issues and associated risks and enable people to set their personal risk tolerances for their personal situations.

Why is this idea important?

Health and Safety continues to be used as a means of preventing individuals from taking a personal, risk based approach to their individual lives.  Whilst I understand the need for key H&S controls to be mandated across the nations, I feel that the H&S agenda has become all pervasive and would like to see a review with a focus on simplifying and restricting the legislation in this area.  I think allowing individuals more personal freedoms strengthen their personal understanding and assessment of H&S issues and associated risks and enable people to set their personal risk tolerances for their personal situations.

regulation of ANPR used bythe private sector

everybody should be looking at getting teh use of ANPR by the private sector such as car parking companies regulated as at the moment it seems that anybody can set themselves up as a parking compnay and use this data base to issue Parking notices and demand what ever they want in terms of payment without the need to be registered and without any form of regulation whihc in turn is giving this very useful crime pervention tool a very bad name.

Why is this idea important?

everybody should be looking at getting teh use of ANPR by the private sector such as car parking companies regulated as at the moment it seems that anybody can set themselves up as a parking compnay and use this data base to issue Parking notices and demand what ever they want in terms of payment without the need to be registered and without any form of regulation whihc in turn is giving this very useful crime pervention tool a very bad name.

Removing the rights of private security guards

It is extremely alarming that more and more of what were once public spaces (after huge battles in the 19th century) are being taken over by private companies who employ their own "police" and make their own "laws".

For example, when carrying out a survey with CABE (Commissioner for Architecture and the Built Environment) just a group of us holding clipboards in the middle of Covent Garden, we were immediately surrounded by a group of private security guards asking what we were up to. Again when photographing a friend outside City Hall with Tower Bridge in the background, More London's private police came and said no photographs were allowed. When shopping in Debenhams last year I was talking to my daughter in her changing cubicle about her prospective purchases when I was rudely told to "move away" – on refusal the assistant apparently called security – 3 young men burst into the women's changing rooms and "arrested" me, dragged me all across the shopfloor and put me in a "cell". I had bruises (documented by my doctor) up my arm for a week. This surely should not be allowed.

I dont think that private companies should be able to make their own laws about what people do and wear in what are apparently public spaces – these spaces should only be governed by the laws of the land and enforced by police who are democratically accountable.

The only role that private security guards should be allowed to have is to contact the real police if a crime is being committed. I dont know what law gives them these powers but it should DEFINITELY be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

It is extremely alarming that more and more of what were once public spaces (after huge battles in the 19th century) are being taken over by private companies who employ their own "police" and make their own "laws".

For example, when carrying out a survey with CABE (Commissioner for Architecture and the Built Environment) just a group of us holding clipboards in the middle of Covent Garden, we were immediately surrounded by a group of private security guards asking what we were up to. Again when photographing a friend outside City Hall with Tower Bridge in the background, More London's private police came and said no photographs were allowed. When shopping in Debenhams last year I was talking to my daughter in her changing cubicle about her prospective purchases when I was rudely told to "move away" – on refusal the assistant apparently called security – 3 young men burst into the women's changing rooms and "arrested" me, dragged me all across the shopfloor and put me in a "cell". I had bruises (documented by my doctor) up my arm for a week. This surely should not be allowed.

I dont think that private companies should be able to make their own laws about what people do and wear in what are apparently public spaces – these spaces should only be governed by the laws of the land and enforced by police who are democratically accountable.

The only role that private security guards should be allowed to have is to contact the real police if a crime is being committed. I dont know what law gives them these powers but it should DEFINITELY be repealed.

Cut planning and conservation rules

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Why is this idea important?

To do away with unnecessary and restrictive planning and conservation regulations that stop people doings things such as erecting a shed in a rural area or taking down an old delapidated building that has no archetectural or cultural merit. To ensure planning authorities actually listen to local people and not just the planners. To stop the need for archaeological surveys for every small builing

Help save our pubs

A range of measures are required to help the pub trade. For example:

To allow breweries to own as many tied pubs as they like – the previous Tory govt 's steps to tackle the perceived lack of inter brewery competition has simply resulted in the rise of pub cos who are essentially property owners with no real interest in the trading profile of the pubs they own; often insisting they buy expensive drinks via them, to the detriment of trade, then when a pub closes, being more than happy to sell the premises for more lucrative re-development, e.g. housing. In rural areas this often strips a community of its only facility.

To allow pubs to serve alcohol to people aged 16 and 17, [possibly with a max %age alcohol level] thus reducing their need to buy cheap [shop sold] alcohol and consume it unregulated on the streets.

Reducing tax on alcoholic drinks sold and consumed in licensed premises – perhaps increasing it [to compensate] for sales via retail outlets.

To allow pubs some leeway to have indoor smokers areas, e.g. in pubs that either don't serve food or have a physical separation of eating/non eating areas and subject to proviso that staff  agree to work in such areas. Failing that why not permit an enclosed [unstaffed] smoking 'shed', etc, outside – to help contain warmth [think of all those gas patio heaters being used and their related co2 emissions !] and any noise that might disturb nearby residents.

To re-introduce restricted pub opening hours, partly  to cut down disturbance to nearby residents beyond a certain reasonable nightime hour and also avoid pubs having to be open [and staffed] for long hours with minimal trade throughout much of them – just because they are worried another pub may take the few customers available ?

Why is this idea important?

A range of measures are required to help the pub trade. For example:

To allow breweries to own as many tied pubs as they like – the previous Tory govt 's steps to tackle the perceived lack of inter brewery competition has simply resulted in the rise of pub cos who are essentially property owners with no real interest in the trading profile of the pubs they own; often insisting they buy expensive drinks via them, to the detriment of trade, then when a pub closes, being more than happy to sell the premises for more lucrative re-development, e.g. housing. In rural areas this often strips a community of its only facility.

To allow pubs to serve alcohol to people aged 16 and 17, [possibly with a max %age alcohol level] thus reducing their need to buy cheap [shop sold] alcohol and consume it unregulated on the streets.

Reducing tax on alcoholic drinks sold and consumed in licensed premises – perhaps increasing it [to compensate] for sales via retail outlets.

To allow pubs some leeway to have indoor smokers areas, e.g. in pubs that either don't serve food or have a physical separation of eating/non eating areas and subject to proviso that staff  agree to work in such areas. Failing that why not permit an enclosed [unstaffed] smoking 'shed', etc, outside – to help contain warmth [think of all those gas patio heaters being used and their related co2 emissions !] and any noise that might disturb nearby residents.

To re-introduce restricted pub opening hours, partly  to cut down disturbance to nearby residents beyond a certain reasonable nightime hour and also avoid pubs having to be open [and staffed] for long hours with minimal trade throughout much of them – just because they are worried another pub may take the few customers available ?

Stop 24 hour drinking & revert to the old pub opening times.

I would like to see pubs going back to the old opening times  i.e 11a.m to 3p.m and 7p.m. to 11p.m. during the week and a little bit later at the weekend.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see pubs going back to the old opening times  i.e 11a.m to 3p.m and 7p.m. to 11p.m. during the week and a little bit later at the weekend.

Removal of Judge from the Bench via Houses of Parliament

I read in a law book that it is possible to remove a judge from the Bench via the Houses of Parliament if

a) ill

b) unsound mind

c) inability to reason

but I cannot remember which book.

 

This would be useful to know in relation to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where a judge has deliberately abused civil right to a fair hearing where it is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.

Why is this idea important?

I read in a law book that it is possible to remove a judge from the Bench via the Houses of Parliament if

a) ill

b) unsound mind

c) inability to reason

but I cannot remember which book.

 

This would be useful to know in relation to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where a judge has deliberately abused civil right to a fair hearing where it is in fact a perversion of the course of justice.