Right to defend my own home

I think its outrageous that we cant even feel safe in our own home. A good number of instances have confirmed that this law is giving as much right to the burglars/murderers when they are in someone's property unwelcomed. It is unacceptable that burglars can even file lawsuits against their victims if they have been scratched! The country is different from what it was 20 years ago and this law needs to be amended. The streets arent as safe as they were. Families who have children especially, will need to be able to defend themselves and not worry about going to jail by just merely acting on self defense.  Hopefully Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron listens to this as it will make a difference to hundreds of lives.

Why is this idea important?

I think its outrageous that we cant even feel safe in our own home. A good number of instances have confirmed that this law is giving as much right to the burglars/murderers when they are in someone's property unwelcomed. It is unacceptable that burglars can even file lawsuits against their victims if they have been scratched! The country is different from what it was 20 years ago and this law needs to be amended. The streets arent as safe as they were. Families who have children especially, will need to be able to defend themselves and not worry about going to jail by just merely acting on self defense.  Hopefully Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron listens to this as it will make a difference to hundreds of lives.

Equal treatment employers and Jobseekers

Jobseekers are forced to look for work where there isn't.

This results in all kind of sad situations, (every rejection is a rejection, it is soul distroying)

Would it not be fair to force  employers to employ long term unemployed persons as compensation for the many Tax breaks Subsidies incentives and other benifits they get from us?

Just to bail out the banks has cost more than all benifits combined. Why did we not force the banks to employ the  the people that has to suffer because of it?

Why is this idea important?

Jobseekers are forced to look for work where there isn't.

This results in all kind of sad situations, (every rejection is a rejection, it is soul distroying)

Would it not be fair to force  employers to employ long term unemployed persons as compensation for the many Tax breaks Subsidies incentives and other benifits they get from us?

Just to bail out the banks has cost more than all benifits combined. Why did we not force the banks to employ the  the people that has to suffer because of it?

Treason Act

In the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act the government repealed the Treason Acts as follows:

The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely— (a) the [1790 c. 48.] Treason Act 1790; (b) the [1795 c. 7.] Treason Act 1795

Why is this idea important?

In the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act the government repealed the Treason Acts as follows:

The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely— (a) the [1790 c. 48.] Treason Act 1790; (b) the [1795 c. 7.] Treason Act 1795

Internet Integrity through Legislation

Internet / Website hosts have both legal and moral responsibilities as does the State and the User. Website hosts and the State enjoy commercial reward and the user benefits in principal from the spend. Legislate the minimum realistic requirements on the three (3) parties.  

The Website Host must:-

  1. publish their "Terms & Conditions" pursuant to legislation
  2. publish their "Protection of Children" pursuant to legislation
  3. publish their "Privacy Policy"  pursuant to legislation
  4. provide for "Users" to report offences and to make this information available to the State in a defined structure
  5. give automated notice to the offender through their "declared e-mail" address on receipt of a report
  6. maintain a record for "X" years of reports and transmit to the State the reports………….

 

The State must:-

  1. provide the infrastructure to receive the reports and translate into meaningful information
  2. make available the legal structures to assist Website hosts to restrict undesirable users such as the prohibition of "Users" employing pseudo names when registering to use a Website host's service

 

The User must:-

  1. conform to the expected behaviour on the internet as it is a public forum
  2. report offenders
  3. be aware of the "Terms & Conditions", "Protection of Children" and "Privacy Policy" of the Website host and that offences may be reported to the State

Why is this idea important?

Internet / Website hosts have both legal and moral responsibilities as does the State and the User. Website hosts and the State enjoy commercial reward and the user benefits in principal from the spend. Legislate the minimum realistic requirements on the three (3) parties.  

The Website Host must:-

  1. publish their "Terms & Conditions" pursuant to legislation
  2. publish their "Protection of Children" pursuant to legislation
  3. publish their "Privacy Policy"  pursuant to legislation
  4. provide for "Users" to report offences and to make this information available to the State in a defined structure
  5. give automated notice to the offender through their "declared e-mail" address on receipt of a report
  6. maintain a record for "X" years of reports and transmit to the State the reports………….

 

The State must:-

  1. provide the infrastructure to receive the reports and translate into meaningful information
  2. make available the legal structures to assist Website hosts to restrict undesirable users such as the prohibition of "Users" employing pseudo names when registering to use a Website host's service

 

The User must:-

  1. conform to the expected behaviour on the internet as it is a public forum
  2. report offenders
  3. be aware of the "Terms & Conditions", "Protection of Children" and "Privacy Policy" of the Website host and that offences may be reported to the State

Ban Clamping by private firms

Every day we read of people being frog-marched to cash-points to withdraw horrendous amounts of money to pay off the bandits posing as car-clampers. The sums involved bear no relation to the supposed offence or to the work involved. Often the 'offences' are 'justified' by some miniscule out-of-sight notice. It is a disgrace to a civilised society that this has been allowed to blight people's lives for so long. Obviously we need to have some degree of control over where people park – but the application of these regulations should be directly under the control of a responsible authority eg the local council – not in the hands of this mini-maffia.

Why is this idea important?

Every day we read of people being frog-marched to cash-points to withdraw horrendous amounts of money to pay off the bandits posing as car-clampers. The sums involved bear no relation to the supposed offence or to the work involved. Often the 'offences' are 'justified' by some miniscule out-of-sight notice. It is a disgrace to a civilised society that this has been allowed to blight people's lives for so long. Obviously we need to have some degree of control over where people park – but the application of these regulations should be directly under the control of a responsible authority eg the local council – not in the hands of this mini-maffia.

Legislate against BUY ONE GET ONE FREE offers

In the UK we throw away 8 millions tonnes of food a year just from households.  This is £12 billion retail value equivelent, more than the entire Department of Transports Budget!!!

This also costs councils and therefore council tax payers another £1 billion per annum to landfill or treat all this food waste!

Its a complex area, but one reason is because people just buy to much when they are shopping in a hurry and never get round to eating it, this is exacerbated by BOGOF offers which make you get twice as much as you really needed. 

In New Zealand a private members bill – the waste minimisation act – requires amongst other things that supermarkets doing BOGOF to offer you a single unit for 50% of the price.  This is a simple measure which combined with public education and awareness of cooking, shopping, storage and home composting could help save the UK billions of pounds and make us leaner, greener, meaner and better off

Why is this idea important?

In the UK we throw away 8 millions tonnes of food a year just from households.  This is £12 billion retail value equivelent, more than the entire Department of Transports Budget!!!

This also costs councils and therefore council tax payers another £1 billion per annum to landfill or treat all this food waste!

Its a complex area, but one reason is because people just buy to much when they are shopping in a hurry and never get round to eating it, this is exacerbated by BOGOF offers which make you get twice as much as you really needed. 

In New Zealand a private members bill – the waste minimisation act – requires amongst other things that supermarkets doing BOGOF to offer you a single unit for 50% of the price.  This is a simple measure which combined with public education and awareness of cooking, shopping, storage and home composting could help save the UK billions of pounds and make us leaner, greener, meaner and better off

Restrict HSE rules to the original heavy industries only.

An area of grossly overbearing government intervention which we as a nation could well do without is our old friend "Elf & Safety". During the last decade the HSE has had an astronomical, self generated scope creep. Originally set up in 1975, addressing (quite correctly) industries with high rates of injury and death – Mining, Construction, Heavy engineering, the edicts from the HSE now cover all aspects of our business and private lives. This includes prohibiting school kids from playing conkers, requiring competitors in a pancake race to walk not run, and recently, an actor playing Nelson having to wear a lifejacket over his costume!  
A very "do-able" solution, which would allow everyone to once again be responsible for their own actions and release businesses from a myriad of ridiculous (and costly) regulations, would be to make HSE regulations mandatory for the original heavy industries, but make the HSE regulations for the rest of society advisory only. Thus if a person 'doing something' felt  confident and responsible about their action and of the overall safety of themselves and others, they could continue without any outside intervention, equipment or authorisation (like we used to do!) 
Suspending the 1999 legislation allowing no win no fee legal firms to tout for spurious injury claim business, which was in some way instrumental in the HSE's expansion into our lives, would be the icing on the cake!

Why is this idea important?

An area of grossly overbearing government intervention which we as a nation could well do without is our old friend "Elf & Safety". During the last decade the HSE has had an astronomical, self generated scope creep. Originally set up in 1975, addressing (quite correctly) industries with high rates of injury and death – Mining, Construction, Heavy engineering, the edicts from the HSE now cover all aspects of our business and private lives. This includes prohibiting school kids from playing conkers, requiring competitors in a pancake race to walk not run, and recently, an actor playing Nelson having to wear a lifejacket over his costume!  
A very "do-able" solution, which would allow everyone to once again be responsible for their own actions and release businesses from a myriad of ridiculous (and costly) regulations, would be to make HSE regulations mandatory for the original heavy industries, but make the HSE regulations for the rest of society advisory only. Thus if a person 'doing something' felt  confident and responsible about their action and of the overall safety of themselves and others, they could continue without any outside intervention, equipment or authorisation (like we used to do!) 
Suspending the 1999 legislation allowing no win no fee legal firms to tout for spurious injury claim business, which was in some way instrumental in the HSE's expansion into our lives, would be the icing on the cake!

JUDGES EXPOSED FOR CORRUPTION AND SACKED

THERE SHOULD BA AN AGENCY MANNED BY QUALIFIED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS FOR CORRUPITON OF JUDGES

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF CORRUPTION

JUDGES FOUND GUILTY OF CORRUPTION WITIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEIR DUTIES SHOULD BE SACKED ON THE SPOT

BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

Why is this idea important?

THERE SHOULD BA AN AGENCY MANNED BY QUALIFIED CONCERNED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS FOR CORRUPITON OF JUDGES

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SYSTEM – THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS DOES NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF CORRUPTION

JUDGES FOUND GUILTY OF CORRUPTION WITIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEIR DUTIES SHOULD BE SACKED ON THE SPOT

BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

scrap the SIA

 a   home office  quango  that is inept in its   duties  & is a  cost burden  on  self employed  law  abiding  citizens in all  parts of the  Licenced  trade that is  in some ways  feeling the  pinch  more than most

Why is this idea important?

 a   home office  quango  that is inept in its   duties  & is a  cost burden  on  self employed  law  abiding  citizens in all  parts of the  Licenced  trade that is  in some ways  feeling the  pinch  more than most

Regulate property management companies

As a leasehold owner the most frustrating thing is getting the bill for the year and having no significant power to challange the management company. They exist in an unregulated environment and as such can charge exessive fees without significant risk of being removed. Any challange made against them takes years to go through the courts and the majoirty of people cannot afford to do this. Bring in a regulatory body (that have some power, eg FSA) to ensure that they charge reasonable amounts and protect the residents.

Why is this idea important?

As a leasehold owner the most frustrating thing is getting the bill for the year and having no significant power to challange the management company. They exist in an unregulated environment and as such can charge exessive fees without significant risk of being removed. Any challange made against them takes years to go through the courts and the majoirty of people cannot afford to do this. Bring in a regulatory body (that have some power, eg FSA) to ensure that they charge reasonable amounts and protect the residents.

health and safety legislation and practice

the health and safety at work act was intended to reduce and prevent industrial accidents, not to provide excuses for all kinds of civil servants and local authorities for not doing their jobs. the scope of the act needs to be seriously  curtailed and interpreted accordingly in the courts

Why is this idea important?

the health and safety at work act was intended to reduce and prevent industrial accidents, not to provide excuses for all kinds of civil servants and local authorities for not doing their jobs. the scope of the act needs to be seriously  curtailed and interpreted accordingly in the courts

Permit the sale of second hand electrical goods in charity shops etc.

Modify whatever law (or risk averse action by the insurance industry) bans us from being able to sell second hand electrical goods in charity shops, village fetes, etc. A lower standard of acceptable safety should apply to such sales, e.g. visual inspection by anyone (or a ‘competent’ person if essential) shows no damage to wiring etc. and the appliance works when turned on, rather than a full electrician check/PAT test being needed.

Why is this idea important?

Modify whatever law (or risk averse action by the insurance industry) bans us from being able to sell second hand electrical goods in charity shops, village fetes, etc. A lower standard of acceptable safety should apply to such sales, e.g. visual inspection by anyone (or a ‘competent’ person if essential) shows no damage to wiring etc. and the appliance works when turned on, rather than a full electrician check/PAT test being needed.

Abolish gas and electricity professionals having to install cookers…

I would like to see this law gone. This law is only another bill for the common people. How many of us are really useless at connecting the gas to our cooker when we move or just buy a new one? And the same for the electic appliances.

Like all this idiotic laws it comes down to common sense and most of us DO have some. How many accidents and lives have been lost through the years in accidents relating to this? I don't claim to know, but I bet, not many. And we have to learn as a society that accidents happen. I hate how the lower class gets constantly hit by all this nonsese and it is always a straight hit to our wallet.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see this law gone. This law is only another bill for the common people. How many of us are really useless at connecting the gas to our cooker when we move or just buy a new one? And the same for the electic appliances.

Like all this idiotic laws it comes down to common sense and most of us DO have some. How many accidents and lives have been lost through the years in accidents relating to this? I don't claim to know, but I bet, not many. And we have to learn as a society that accidents happen. I hate how the lower class gets constantly hit by all this nonsese and it is always a straight hit to our wallet.

Free the professions

 

Abolish statutory regulators of the professions, but require the professions to set up self regulation conforming to minimum standards of fairness and public responsibility.

Why is this idea important?

 

Abolish statutory regulators of the professions, but require the professions to set up self regulation conforming to minimum standards of fairness and public responsibility.

Health and Safety

There is too much health and safety regulation.  There are other members of the EU who have signed up and then appear to ignore it all.  It will reduce costs to business in terms of Health and safety officers and it might also reduce the 'where there is blame there is a claim' culture we have at the moment.  I know that it costs local councils £100,000's in claims just through people not using their common sense.  They would rather settle with a large payment instead of toughing it out.

Why is this idea important?

There is too much health and safety regulation.  There are other members of the EU who have signed up and then appear to ignore it all.  It will reduce costs to business in terms of Health and safety officers and it might also reduce the 'where there is blame there is a claim' culture we have at the moment.  I know that it costs local councils £100,000's in claims just through people not using their common sense.  They would rather settle with a large payment instead of toughing it out.

repeal of section 130 of Highways Act

This law is the bane of all landowners who have public rights of way on their land. It allows an individual who is very likely to be an extremist neighbour with an agenda to take action against a local authority for alleged obstructions to footpaths. It engages the landowner in a lengthy and costly dispute with three parties (the local authority,the neighbour and himself) and ends in some very questionable judgements which are often of no value to anyone and could have been better sorted out if all three parties could have sat around a table to resolve an issue. The local authority ends up paying a fortune for something they have the power to control themselves. This is a law which is a typical labour law which was designed to set people against people and neighbours against neighbours and is of absolutely no benefit to anyone. It is important to remeber that this applies to public rights of way over people's private land.

Why is this idea important?

This law is the bane of all landowners who have public rights of way on their land. It allows an individual who is very likely to be an extremist neighbour with an agenda to take action against a local authority for alleged obstructions to footpaths. It engages the landowner in a lengthy and costly dispute with three parties (the local authority,the neighbour and himself) and ends in some very questionable judgements which are often of no value to anyone and could have been better sorted out if all three parties could have sat around a table to resolve an issue. The local authority ends up paying a fortune for something they have the power to control themselves. This is a law which is a typical labour law which was designed to set people against people and neighbours against neighbours and is of absolutely no benefit to anyone. It is important to remeber that this applies to public rights of way over people's private land.

Charity-reducing cost and control

The new charities act has changed the role of the charity commissioners. Under the old act, the commissioners prevented abuse and ensured that charities stuck to doing what they were set up to do. The new act requires the commissioners to interfere in how charities are run. The problem with this is essentially one of control- surely the point of a vibrant third sector is so that it will do things differenently from government? Imposing targets and social policy aims on charities will merely make them an extension of government. It also adds to the costs and complexity of running a charity. Why not simply repeal the new act?

Why is this idea important?

The new charities act has changed the role of the charity commissioners. Under the old act, the commissioners prevented abuse and ensured that charities stuck to doing what they were set up to do. The new act requires the commissioners to interfere in how charities are run. The problem with this is essentially one of control- surely the point of a vibrant third sector is so that it will do things differenently from government? Imposing targets and social policy aims on charities will merely make them an extension of government. It also adds to the costs and complexity of running a charity. Why not simply repeal the new act?

Personal injury

Not so much a repeal, but a necessary action. It appears to me that the biggest intrusion into my ability to do anything is 'health and safety', an excuse used to cover the real fear which is that of being taken to court if anything happens. This occurs at all sorts of levels:

My local council won't sell anything from the tip – reuse is far more environmental than recycle – this restriction is incase I hurt myself and sue.

My son isn't allowed on the footplate of a steam engine in a local museum in case he falls…

My sons school tennis courts are locked up all summer in case someone trips on them…

I had to fill in an accident form when I pulled a muscle at squash just in case….

Woodpeckers have no where to live because dead or dying trees are chopped down in case they fall on someone…

All of this rubbish (and far far far more) erode our way of life, fail to protect enough people to warrant the intrusion and are largely because judges refuse to tackle the real problem – baseless claims for compensation. If I walk in a wood next to a dead tree in a gale its my fault if it falls on me, if I play squash and pull a muscle its my fault, if my son falls off a steam engine its my fault, if I am playing …. well you get the idea. If I sue the council then the judge should turn around and bankrupt me completely for trying to blame someone else for my stupidity. And until they are instructed to do just that this 'personal injury' rubbish will continue to wreck all our lives…. I mean, that advert -I climbed a ladder I hadn't been shown how to use, fell off and got 20k, if you are that stupid you don't either ask for training or more intelligently just know what to do then you shouldn't get 20k you should get locked up to keep you safe from yourself.

Why is this idea important?

Not so much a repeal, but a necessary action. It appears to me that the biggest intrusion into my ability to do anything is 'health and safety', an excuse used to cover the real fear which is that of being taken to court if anything happens. This occurs at all sorts of levels:

My local council won't sell anything from the tip – reuse is far more environmental than recycle – this restriction is incase I hurt myself and sue.

My son isn't allowed on the footplate of a steam engine in a local museum in case he falls…

My sons school tennis courts are locked up all summer in case someone trips on them…

I had to fill in an accident form when I pulled a muscle at squash just in case….

Woodpeckers have no where to live because dead or dying trees are chopped down in case they fall on someone…

All of this rubbish (and far far far more) erode our way of life, fail to protect enough people to warrant the intrusion and are largely because judges refuse to tackle the real problem – baseless claims for compensation. If I walk in a wood next to a dead tree in a gale its my fault if it falls on me, if I play squash and pull a muscle its my fault, if my son falls off a steam engine its my fault, if I am playing …. well you get the idea. If I sue the council then the judge should turn around and bankrupt me completely for trying to blame someone else for my stupidity. And until they are instructed to do just that this 'personal injury' rubbish will continue to wreck all our lives…. I mean, that advert -I climbed a ladder I hadn't been shown how to use, fell off and got 20k, if you are that stupid you don't either ask for training or more intelligently just know what to do then you shouldn't get 20k you should get locked up to keep you safe from yourself.

CLARIFY HOUSEHOLDER PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: the planning permission you’ve already got.

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.

Why is this idea important?

The 'new regulations' (just Google "SI 2008 No 2362"), which came into force on the 1st October 2008, were spun at the time by Caroline Flint as a significant liberalisation of householders' previous statutory rights to extend and alter their homes, within pre-set limits, without recourse to a planning application.

These new regulatons, however, are causing protracted, unneccessary and damaging delay as a direct result of lack of guidance from Communities and Local Government (CLG) as to their meaning.

The system, first introduced for houses in 1950, is designed to grant general permission for development which would otherwise be granted routinely were an application to be made for it. A further purpose is to free up council planning department resources so that they can concentrate on more significant matters. Indeed, it was with that purpose in mind that the previous government embarked on reform and liberalisation of the system with a series of consultations which led, in turn, to those new rules introduced on the 1st October 2008.

Householder permitted development (known as PD) is more important than you may at first realise: when you so much as put up a little garden shed or greenhouse, you are exercising your permitted development rights. They're not just for extensions and lost conversions, for example. PD rights are supposed to allow work to be started straight away.

However, the new rules have proved to be less effective than intended and in many cases are now the cause of delayed projects and thus, in turn, lost economic output in the form of jobs both for the direct labour involved and the materials and associated supply chain. Every £1 spent on a building project is said to generate about £4 worth of economic benefit. This is at a time of urgent need for building works starts.