MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Make metric labelling compulsory as the primary unit of measurement on all items sold in all UK retailers

45 years ago, an elected UK Government acting on the advice of UK industry, announced the adoption of the metric system in 1975. This change brought tremendous benefits to UK businesses especially those whose trade involves international collaboration. The massive investment from overseas car manufacturers (eg Nissan, Honda & Toyota) demonstrates the need to use a near- universally adopted system of measurements. The education of the Imperial system of measurements was phased out in 1974 but the overall progress to complete metrication has been slower than planned due to wavering Goverment commitment in the face of a small but orchestrated campaign against the metric system. However, the public at large seem to accept metric and most everyday products are now sold exclusively in metric. I believe the time is now right to start converting the remaining key products areas into metric, namely clothing, shoes and TV/monitor screen sizes. Imperial sizes could still be mentioned as a secondary measure to help with the transition until a date 5 years hence when all Imperial measures should disappear forever

Why is this idea important?

45 years ago, an elected UK Government acting on the advice of UK industry, announced the adoption of the metric system in 1975. This change brought tremendous benefits to UK businesses especially those whose trade involves international collaboration. The massive investment from overseas car manufacturers (eg Nissan, Honda & Toyota) demonstrates the need to use a near- universally adopted system of measurements. The education of the Imperial system of measurements was phased out in 1974 but the overall progress to complete metrication has been slower than planned due to wavering Goverment commitment in the face of a small but orchestrated campaign against the metric system. However, the public at large seem to accept metric and most everyday products are now sold exclusively in metric. I believe the time is now right to start converting the remaining key products areas into metric, namely clothing, shoes and TV/monitor screen sizes. Imperial sizes could still be mentioned as a secondary measure to help with the transition until a date 5 years hence when all Imperial measures should disappear forever

All Way Stop At Road Junctions

The average cost of installing traffic lights at a junction is over £100,000.  Why don’t we allow the installation of all way stops as they do in the USA.  A couple of pots of paint and a few signs and it works like a dream.

Why is this idea important?

The average cost of installing traffic lights at a junction is over £100,000.  Why don’t we allow the installation of all way stops as they do in the USA.  A couple of pots of paint and a few signs and it works like a dream.

Stop Painting Roads

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Why is this idea important?

There are too many regulations governing the marking of roads.  Every different road use needs a different marking and each needs a sign to tell us what it means – and these markings and signs are too frequent, and cost a huge amount to implement.

 

Clarification of data sharing obligations of public bodies

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Why is this idea important?

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Review all Health & Safety legislation for ‘reasonableness’

All H&S legislation should be subject to sweeping reform based on commonsense and reasonableness, with a view to reducing its effect on every aspect of daily life apart from the original concept of protecting life and limb in traditionally dangerous industries.

Why is this idea important?

All H&S legislation should be subject to sweeping reform based on commonsense and reasonableness, with a view to reducing its effect on every aspect of daily life apart from the original concept of protecting life and limb in traditionally dangerous industries.

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

END RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY TRADING

Allow all retailers to open their premises on all Sundays without restriction. Whether or not to open on Sundays and for how long should be a business decision made in consultation with and preferably by agreement with the staff concerned. Existing protections in employment law for staff who wish to observe Sunday as a holy day should be retained.

Why is this idea important?

Allow all retailers to open their premises on all Sundays without restriction. Whether or not to open on Sundays and for how long should be a business decision made in consultation with and preferably by agreement with the staff concerned. Existing protections in employment law for staff who wish to observe Sunday as a holy day should be retained.

Reform the National Minimum Wage to allow profit-share enterprises

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Why is this idea important?

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

any law forced upon us by EU an infringement of liberty

As long as the EU remains unelected by british citizens and a referendum denied then any law forced upon us by the EU becomes an infringement upon our liberties.  Whether or not you are pro or anti Europe is irrelevant, the fact is democracy has been denied and as long as we are denied a vote or a chance to elect the EU officials then any rule forced upon us is an act of dictatorship and oppression.

Why is this idea important?

As long as the EU remains unelected by british citizens and a referendum denied then any law forced upon us by the EU becomes an infringement upon our liberties.  Whether or not you are pro or anti Europe is irrelevant, the fact is democracy has been denied and as long as we are denied a vote or a chance to elect the EU officials then any rule forced upon us is an act of dictatorship and oppression.

merge “employer’s” and “employee’s” national insurance: it’s all our money anyway

End employer's national insurance contribution increase employee's national insurance contribution to compensate.

Why is this idea important?

End employer's national insurance contribution increase employee's national insurance contribution to compensate.

Make politicians listen and act FOR us

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Why is this idea important?

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Stop Schools confiscating children’s packed lunched

Some schools confiscate a child's packed lunch if it is deemed to contain more than one unhealthy item.  This is a blatant infringement upon civil liberties.  Yes healthy eating is important and is to be encouraged but a school should not have the right to search children's lunch boxes and confiscate them if a parent has decided to give their child 2 biscuits instead of one.   People should be allowed to make their own informed decisions.  

Why is this idea important?

Some schools confiscate a child's packed lunch if it is deemed to contain more than one unhealthy item.  This is a blatant infringement upon civil liberties.  Yes healthy eating is important and is to be encouraged but a school should not have the right to search children's lunch boxes and confiscate them if a parent has decided to give their child 2 biscuits instead of one.   People should be allowed to make their own informed decisions.  

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

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

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

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

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Cutting the regulation of small businesses

I have spent the last year seeking to create some income to pay for the maintenance etc of the large historic house I live in. In doing so I have been faced with interminable regulation of one kind or another from the local council and the fire service out of all proportion to any perceived risks or effect upon the surrounding community. In this process I have had to:

  • apply for 3 sets of planning permission simply involving change of use, leading to a requirement from the highways department for me to spend thousands of pounds on modifications to my drive for ludicrous reasons.
  • obtain a personal licence (the one you need to run a pub or nightclub) simply to hold a small number of weddings on the premises.
  • obtain a premises licence.
  • be subjected to a fire department audit which required me again to spend thousands of pounds on precautions for a fire risk that is negligable.
  • be inspected by the environmental health services simply because we provide breakfasts to a few B & B guests.

I could go on but suffice it to say that I have been met with a set of officials with the right to interfere with just about everything one does and require expenditure that is out of all relation to the risks involved. One of the byproducts is that we have decided we will not employ anyone under any circumstances. If one does the level of regulation is now laughable – having to send them on courses to climb ladders, lift boxes and other such nonsense. Anybody working here now has to be self employed.

I should add that my career has been in govt and corporate life where I have managed large numbers of people and have a good appreciation of what is really required.

There is a great need to strip out this unnecessary regulation and I eagerly look forward to staffing cuts in the local govt sector which will mean that there simply are not all these people with time on their hands and no appreciation of the realities of running a business.

Why is this idea important?

I have spent the last year seeking to create some income to pay for the maintenance etc of the large historic house I live in. In doing so I have been faced with interminable regulation of one kind or another from the local council and the fire service out of all proportion to any perceived risks or effect upon the surrounding community. In this process I have had to:

  • apply for 3 sets of planning permission simply involving change of use, leading to a requirement from the highways department for me to spend thousands of pounds on modifications to my drive for ludicrous reasons.
  • obtain a personal licence (the one you need to run a pub or nightclub) simply to hold a small number of weddings on the premises.
  • obtain a premises licence.
  • be subjected to a fire department audit which required me again to spend thousands of pounds on precautions for a fire risk that is negligable.
  • be inspected by the environmental health services simply because we provide breakfasts to a few B & B guests.

I could go on but suffice it to say that I have been met with a set of officials with the right to interfere with just about everything one does and require expenditure that is out of all relation to the risks involved. One of the byproducts is that we have decided we will not employ anyone under any circumstances. If one does the level of regulation is now laughable – having to send them on courses to climb ladders, lift boxes and other such nonsense. Anybody working here now has to be self employed.

I should add that my career has been in govt and corporate life where I have managed large numbers of people and have a good appreciation of what is really required.

There is a great need to strip out this unnecessary regulation and I eagerly look forward to staffing cuts in the local govt sector which will mean that there simply are not all these people with time on their hands and no appreciation of the realities of running a business.

Get rid of covert surveillance on innocent citizens; Repeal Regulatory Investigatory powers act

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

Why is this idea important?

This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware.  It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often  without due cause.  At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Why is this idea important?

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

The Traffic Signs Regulations should not have authority over footpaths and cycleways

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Laws that hang individuals out to dry

I would like to see an end to Government and public authorities abdicating their responsibilities and putting them on individuals.

Two examples, latest fire regulations and anti money laundering regulations.

Fire regs

Companies are now required to carry out their own risk assessments of buildings instead of the Fire Service. The company then has to appoint a 'responsible person' for it's premises.

In a company that has lots of branches, that would mean someone at a very low level having that responsibility.

Even if they have received adequate training, as they are not 'experts', if there were a problem that led to serious injury or loss of life, that individual would be responsible.

Is that burden fair?

The responsibility should go back to the Fire Service who should be mandated to carry out inpections on business premises and report on what is needed. They are the experts. It should be funded by businesses being charged for the inspections and the Fire Service should have authority to enforce necessary procedures/works to comply.

In local authorities, you have to pay for planning services as a business, planners have the power to investigate planning breaches and serve enforcment orders on those that don't comply. Why not the same for the Fire Regs?

Anti Money Laundering Regs

Again, these place enormous penalties and pressure on ordinary employees.

Those involved in money laundering are very skilled in this complex area and will always look to exploit an easy target.

However despite the severe penalties in criminal law that apply, individuals have no access to advice from the authorities.

In fact in some cases, the authorities put individuals at risk by exposing them to potential high level criminals on the one hand and prison sentences on the other with no help from organisations such as SOCA who make it plain they are not an advice service.

Example: an individual is under investigation by one body who seize documents from a company as part of their investigation. That company is required to hand over all documentation with nothing witheld, deleted or altered. As evidence, those documents are then made available to the defendant.

If those documents include reference to the suspicion of unrelated criminal activity, eg money laundering,  the individual will find out about it and what's worse, and who was involved.

The innocent employee could then face a charge of tipping off which is a criminal offence possibly leading to a jail sentence and at the same time be at risk of reprisals from a hardened criminal.

SOCA and other agencies need to be funded so that can pro-active in pursuing serious criminals not depend on the public with severe penalties if they miss something.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see an end to Government and public authorities abdicating their responsibilities and putting them on individuals.

Two examples, latest fire regulations and anti money laundering regulations.

Fire regs

Companies are now required to carry out their own risk assessments of buildings instead of the Fire Service. The company then has to appoint a 'responsible person' for it's premises.

In a company that has lots of branches, that would mean someone at a very low level having that responsibility.

Even if they have received adequate training, as they are not 'experts', if there were a problem that led to serious injury or loss of life, that individual would be responsible.

Is that burden fair?

The responsibility should go back to the Fire Service who should be mandated to carry out inpections on business premises and report on what is needed. They are the experts. It should be funded by businesses being charged for the inspections and the Fire Service should have authority to enforce necessary procedures/works to comply.

In local authorities, you have to pay for planning services as a business, planners have the power to investigate planning breaches and serve enforcment orders on those that don't comply. Why not the same for the Fire Regs?

Anti Money Laundering Regs

Again, these place enormous penalties and pressure on ordinary employees.

Those involved in money laundering are very skilled in this complex area and will always look to exploit an easy target.

However despite the severe penalties in criminal law that apply, individuals have no access to advice from the authorities.

In fact in some cases, the authorities put individuals at risk by exposing them to potential high level criminals on the one hand and prison sentences on the other with no help from organisations such as SOCA who make it plain they are not an advice service.

Example: an individual is under investigation by one body who seize documents from a company as part of their investigation. That company is required to hand over all documentation with nothing witheld, deleted or altered. As evidence, those documents are then made available to the defendant.

If those documents include reference to the suspicion of unrelated criminal activity, eg money laundering,  the individual will find out about it and what's worse, and who was involved.

The innocent employee could then face a charge of tipping off which is a criminal offence possibly leading to a jail sentence and at the same time be at risk of reprisals from a hardened criminal.

SOCA and other agencies need to be funded so that can pro-active in pursuing serious criminals not depend on the public with severe penalties if they miss something.

Job grant, unfair to the hard working people in society

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Set us Free

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Exportable Disability Benefits and ECJ ruling

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.
 

Why is this idea important?

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.