Equal Opportunities Monitoring by public bodies

Removing regulations that require job applicants to apply by "application pack" instead of CV

Creating regulation that requires all equal opportunities monitoring to be regulated so that each job applicant is notified of statistical data concerning the post advertised.

Why is this idea important?

Removing regulations that require job applicants to apply by "application pack" instead of CV

Creating regulation that requires all equal opportunities monitoring to be regulated so that each job applicant is notified of statistical data concerning the post advertised.

Codification of Banking laws

There are three ways to clear a cheque with laws going back to the 18th Century.  There is a need for a complete codification exercise of case precedent and statute law in "banking", "finance", "investment", "corporate" and "taxation" for the law to be brought up to the 21st century.  

Why is this idea important?

There are three ways to clear a cheque with laws going back to the 18th Century.  There is a need for a complete codification exercise of case precedent and statute law in "banking", "finance", "investment", "corporate" and "taxation" for the law to be brought up to the 21st century.  

Implement new thresholds for making / repealing new laws

Set the threshold for making a new law at 75% of those eligible to vote, rather than a simple majority, as any new law should have at least the support of a sizeable majority of the law makers.

All new laws to have a sunset clause whereby they are either reaffirmed as necessary or they are automatically repealed.

Set the threshold for repealing existing laws at 25% of those eligible to vote, as if a quarter of the law makers think it is unworkable / impracticable etc, then it deserves to go.

The current proposal for one in one out also makes sense.

Why is this idea important?

Set the threshold for making a new law at 75% of those eligible to vote, rather than a simple majority, as any new law should have at least the support of a sizeable majority of the law makers.

All new laws to have a sunset clause whereby they are either reaffirmed as necessary or they are automatically repealed.

Set the threshold for repealing existing laws at 25% of those eligible to vote, as if a quarter of the law makers think it is unworkable / impracticable etc, then it deserves to go.

The current proposal for one in one out also makes sense.

Article 6

Article 6 of the HRA 1998 should be criminalised to perversion of the course of justice as there needs to be procedural nonsense and reality is the judge is implicitly involved in an art 6 issue

It is very very difficult to do a miscarriage of justice as this requires "inadvertence" and or likely a lack of evidence in a case different from an ommittance of evidence in a case.  Therefore a miscarriage of justice should be seen as different from a "deliberate" act by a judge such that there is an article 6 hearing on appeal.

A good indicator of a judge not in control of his courtroom is a request or repeated requests for contempt of court orders in by a party to a case, or a continual or overly long delay in proceedings – the courts have electronic scheduling and the case should be moving in fortnightly or monthly time frame cycles – where it is not, then an appeal is likely and is a good indicator that a "deliberate" injustice is occurring on the case where people are currently signposted to article 6 when the issue is really a perversion of the course of justice.

Why is this idea important?

Article 6 of the HRA 1998 should be criminalised to perversion of the course of justice as there needs to be procedural nonsense and reality is the judge is implicitly involved in an art 6 issue

It is very very difficult to do a miscarriage of justice as this requires "inadvertence" and or likely a lack of evidence in a case different from an ommittance of evidence in a case.  Therefore a miscarriage of justice should be seen as different from a "deliberate" act by a judge such that there is an article 6 hearing on appeal.

A good indicator of a judge not in control of his courtroom is a request or repeated requests for contempt of court orders in by a party to a case, or a continual or overly long delay in proceedings – the courts have electronic scheduling and the case should be moving in fortnightly or monthly time frame cycles – where it is not, then an appeal is likely and is a good indicator that a "deliberate" injustice is occurring on the case where people are currently signposted to article 6 when the issue is really a perversion of the course of justice.

OFCOM

Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.

Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.

Why is this idea important?

Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.

Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.

Serious about crime? Then de-criminalise drugs!

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Abolish the General Chiropractic Council.

The General Chiropractic Council was set up with the intention of protecting the Public from malpractice.  However the GCC has set about interfering with virtually every aspect of it's registrants working and private lives.  It has exceeded it's mandate to such an extent that the Chiropractors commissioned a survey which came up with the following conclusion:

77.1% of the profession had no confidence in the in the GCC a finding later endorsed by the Chiropractic Patients Association.  The GCC as an organisation has itself been riven with political infighting among the factions which make up it's council structures and senior figures within the organisation have been forced to resign over what might be termed seroius errors of judgement in the course of their work activities.  Such problems have retarded the profession and undermined the GCC's ability to act in a fair and impartial manner.  

So what might be the way forward?

N0.1 reduce the scope of regulation to encompass only what is required to protect the public from physical harm. For all other matters we have a system of civil proceedures open to the public. 

No.2 Merge all non medical healthcare regulation into one body to reduce business costs ie abolish the GCC

No.3  insist on one national association to represent  the Chiropractors and to help deal with lower tier professional transgressions that do not warrant costly public hearings( for such misdemeanours as having cat hair on the floor of a clinic)  . 

Lastly a full open audit of all the GCC's activities regarding their handling of their regulatory duties since their inception 10 years ago 

Why is this idea important?

The General Chiropractic Council was set up with the intention of protecting the Public from malpractice.  However the GCC has set about interfering with virtually every aspect of it's registrants working and private lives.  It has exceeded it's mandate to such an extent that the Chiropractors commissioned a survey which came up with the following conclusion:

77.1% of the profession had no confidence in the in the GCC a finding later endorsed by the Chiropractic Patients Association.  The GCC as an organisation has itself been riven with political infighting among the factions which make up it's council structures and senior figures within the organisation have been forced to resign over what might be termed seroius errors of judgement in the course of their work activities.  Such problems have retarded the profession and undermined the GCC's ability to act in a fair and impartial manner.  

So what might be the way forward?

N0.1 reduce the scope of regulation to encompass only what is required to protect the public from physical harm. For all other matters we have a system of civil proceedures open to the public. 

No.2 Merge all non medical healthcare regulation into one body to reduce business costs ie abolish the GCC

No.3  insist on one national association to represent  the Chiropractors and to help deal with lower tier professional transgressions that do not warrant costly public hearings( for such misdemeanours as having cat hair on the floor of a clinic)  . 

Lastly a full open audit of all the GCC's activities regarding their handling of their regulatory duties since their inception 10 years ago 

Repeal requirement for no smoking signs.

s6 of the Health Act 2006, which requires the display of "No Smoking" signs on buildings open to the public, should be repealed.  If there was ever an argument for these signs, it was that the smoking ban was new and people needed to know about it, but the ban has bedded in now.

Why is this idea important?

s6 of the Health Act 2006, which requires the display of "No Smoking" signs on buildings open to the public, should be repealed.  If there was ever an argument for these signs, it was that the smoking ban was new and people needed to know about it, but the ban has bedded in now.

Review, modify or repeal some of the regulations below the HSW etc. Act 1974

 

In general I would like to see some of regulatory reform that downgrades the legislation made under the enabling act to approved code of practice status or transfer some of the responsibility to set compliance levels to standards bodies such as BSI or ISO instead, to enable businesses to have more freedom in how they go about fulfilling their duty of care. 

There has never been a prosecution brought under the DSE regulations. Indeed the six pack in general is largely a code of practice disguised as law with very little criminal impact. The real concern is litigation and this usually arises because a disgruntled employee sees an avenue for managing a grievance. Good employers provide good places to work. Approved codes of practice are effective in helping businesses meet their obligations. The strictures of binding regulation limit

Why is this idea important?

 

In general I would like to see some of regulatory reform that downgrades the legislation made under the enabling act to approved code of practice status or transfer some of the responsibility to set compliance levels to standards bodies such as BSI or ISO instead, to enable businesses to have more freedom in how they go about fulfilling their duty of care. 

There has never been a prosecution brought under the DSE regulations. Indeed the six pack in general is largely a code of practice disguised as law with very little criminal impact. The real concern is litigation and this usually arises because a disgruntled employee sees an avenue for managing a grievance. Good employers provide good places to work. Approved codes of practice are effective in helping businesses meet their obligations. The strictures of binding regulation limit

Health and Safety – Removal of the burden of risk assessment and recording of findings

There is a requirement in uk health and safety legislation to carry out a risk assessment for ALL activities and to record 'significant findings'.This regulation which is very specific adds little value to health and safety and has become a charter for consultants and 'elf and safety' jokes and incredibly costly to implement while in itself adding little value to improving safety and health. The law which protects people is the general duty of care to employees or members of the public within the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Removal of the requirement to carry out risk assessment and record the findings would remove a large burden from all businesses. This would not lower health and safety standards as other specific regulations will still apply to higher risk activities e.g work at height ,machinery safety,pressure systems etc.

Savings on the cost of consultants would be significant.

Why is this idea important?

There is a requirement in uk health and safety legislation to carry out a risk assessment for ALL activities and to record 'significant findings'.This regulation which is very specific adds little value to health and safety and has become a charter for consultants and 'elf and safety' jokes and incredibly costly to implement while in itself adding little value to improving safety and health. The law which protects people is the general duty of care to employees or members of the public within the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Removal of the requirement to carry out risk assessment and record the findings would remove a large burden from all businesses. This would not lower health and safety standards as other specific regulations will still apply to higher risk activities e.g work at height ,machinery safety,pressure systems etc.

Savings on the cost of consultants would be significant.

OPTING OUT OF THE NHS MEDICAL RECORDS DATABASE

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.

Why is this idea important?

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.

Amend Core regulations

Currently all regulations are amended or revoked in Amendment regulations or within new regulation.  When the amended regulation is published the core regulation stands as originally published and is not reissued with the amendment.  This has the effect of departments of government having to issue a code of practise or other such intrument which is then used by business as an authority to comply with regulation.  

Why is this idea important?

Currently all regulations are amended or revoked in Amendment regulations or within new regulation.  When the amended regulation is published the core regulation stands as originally published and is not reissued with the amendment.  This has the effect of departments of government having to issue a code of practise or other such intrument which is then used by business as an authority to comply with regulation.