WHY PUT MORE OUT OF WORK

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Why is this idea important?

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Global shift in attitudes towards cannabis-UK response?

The issue of cannabis legislation is a tricky one. I believe cannabis should be decriminalised and regulated like alcohol and tobacco.

Given the global shift in attitudes towards cannabis – How does Britain respond?

If we look at current international attiudes with fellow countries from the developed western world…

The United States has Medical marijuana in 13 states, California is currently debating the legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes

The dutch have arguably the most cannabis friendly attitude in europe,

Recent changes in both spainish and portugese drugs policy with the decriminalisation of cannabis  – with portugal decriminalising all drugs.

Canada has had a fairly relaxed attitude towards cannabis Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's marijuana laws to be of no force and effect.The cultivation of cannabis is currently illegal in Canada, with exceptions only for medical usage.

Medical marijuana will soon be available in Germany, with the centre-right coalition preparing to make ground-breaking changes to drug laws, a government health spokeswoman said this week.

The UK? Classification of Cannabis has become especially controversial. In 2004, Cannabis was reclassified from class B to class C, in accordance with advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). In 2009, it was returned to class B against ACMD advice. Surely our drugs policy be based upon science and fact? Not historical prejudices and misconceptions.

Cannabis is illegal to possess and/or cultivate under the 1971 Misuse of drugs act. That is unless you get a license to grow it from the home office… After detailed research i could only find evidence of one company ever recieving such a license.

On the 11th of June 1998,  a UK-based company, GW Pharmaceuticals received a license from the Home Office in order to conduct research into the medicinal uses of cannabis. The company had noted the large amounts of evidence that cannabis has beneficial effects on a number of medical symptoms.
GW Pharmaceuticals then set out to conduct controlled clinical trials to evaluate these with a view to producing a final product to bring relief to thousands of sufferers to whom existing pharmacological treatments do not suffice. GW Pharmaceuticals thus became the only company in the UK licensed to provide raw cannabis materials for trials. Since then Sativex has been granted a UK license – this was granted in June of this year.

"My professional view of cannabis as a substance is that it appears to be a remarkably safe substance in comparison to most medicines prescribed today. The more I learn about this plant the more fascinated I become. It has through its various constituents multiple effects of therapeutic interest, many of which are now being validated by the enormous growth in basic cannabinoid research." – Dr Geoffrey Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals.

There was an interesting interview on CNBC with Dr Guy and he confirmed that GW Pharmaceuticals are developing a whole range of products from the cannabis plant which will deal with Cancer pain, epilepsy, diabetes and inflammatory diseases. Their work with cancer patients in the US is already under way.They already have approval in canada for cannabis based medicines in advanced cancer patients – primarily pain relief.
So Cannabis the evil drug has serious potential as a medicine – this is one of the key things that seperate it from other drugs. Cannabis has real medical benefits.

Drug classification: making a hash of it? is the title of a report authored by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee and submitted to the British House of Commons. It was published in July 2006. The report suggested that the current system of recreational drug classification in the UK was arbitrary and unscientific and suggested a more scientific measure of harm be used for classifying drugs.

A quick look at the facts on alcohol…

Alcohol related deaths in the UK rose to 9,031 in 2008, up from 8,724 the previous year
– Branwen Jeffreys, Health Correspondent, BBC News

 Drug related deaths in the UK rose to 1,952 in 2008, up from 1900 the previous year
-St George's University of London, Drug related deaths in the UK, Annual report 2009

So almost 5 times more people died from alcohol related deaths than drug related deaths in 2008 yet alcohol isn't covered under the misuse of drugs act. Number of cannabis related deaths out of the 1,952 drug related deaths… ZERO.

Alcohol features in almost 50% of violent crime, yet isn't covered under the misuse of drugs act – this is because we know that for the large part alcohol is consumed responsibly by the majority of people who choose to use it.
We should be able to do the same with cannabis (And cannabis has been proven to assist with a number of different medical conditions) Alcohol has no proven medical benefits – the only one i could find was the use of it as an anti septic or disinfectant.
So alcohol is involved in more deaths & violent crime than cannabis yet is regulated and controlled – And not by the misuse of drugs act!

In essence we need to re-examine our attitudes towards cannabis and its criminalisation. The issue at hand is multi-faceted and extremely complex, this should not however stop us from engaging with the issue

Cannabis needs to be decriminalised and the sooner the better

Why is this idea important?

The issue of cannabis legislation is a tricky one. I believe cannabis should be decriminalised and regulated like alcohol and tobacco.

Given the global shift in attitudes towards cannabis – How does Britain respond?

If we look at current international attiudes with fellow countries from the developed western world…

The United States has Medical marijuana in 13 states, California is currently debating the legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes

The dutch have arguably the most cannabis friendly attitude in europe,

Recent changes in both spainish and portugese drugs policy with the decriminalisation of cannabis  – with portugal decriminalising all drugs.

Canada has had a fairly relaxed attitude towards cannabis Superior and appellate courts in Ontario have repeatedly declared Canada's marijuana laws to be of no force and effect.The cultivation of cannabis is currently illegal in Canada, with exceptions only for medical usage.

Medical marijuana will soon be available in Germany, with the centre-right coalition preparing to make ground-breaking changes to drug laws, a government health spokeswoman said this week.

The UK? Classification of Cannabis has become especially controversial. In 2004, Cannabis was reclassified from class B to class C, in accordance with advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). In 2009, it was returned to class B against ACMD advice. Surely our drugs policy be based upon science and fact? Not historical prejudices and misconceptions.

Cannabis is illegal to possess and/or cultivate under the 1971 Misuse of drugs act. That is unless you get a license to grow it from the home office… After detailed research i could only find evidence of one company ever recieving such a license.

On the 11th of June 1998,  a UK-based company, GW Pharmaceuticals received a license from the Home Office in order to conduct research into the medicinal uses of cannabis. The company had noted the large amounts of evidence that cannabis has beneficial effects on a number of medical symptoms.
GW Pharmaceuticals then set out to conduct controlled clinical trials to evaluate these with a view to producing a final product to bring relief to thousands of sufferers to whom existing pharmacological treatments do not suffice. GW Pharmaceuticals thus became the only company in the UK licensed to provide raw cannabis materials for trials. Since then Sativex has been granted a UK license – this was granted in June of this year.

"My professional view of cannabis as a substance is that it appears to be a remarkably safe substance in comparison to most medicines prescribed today. The more I learn about this plant the more fascinated I become. It has through its various constituents multiple effects of therapeutic interest, many of which are now being validated by the enormous growth in basic cannabinoid research." – Dr Geoffrey Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals.

There was an interesting interview on CNBC with Dr Guy and he confirmed that GW Pharmaceuticals are developing a whole range of products from the cannabis plant which will deal with Cancer pain, epilepsy, diabetes and inflammatory diseases. Their work with cancer patients in the US is already under way.They already have approval in canada for cannabis based medicines in advanced cancer patients – primarily pain relief.
So Cannabis the evil drug has serious potential as a medicine – this is one of the key things that seperate it from other drugs. Cannabis has real medical benefits.

Drug classification: making a hash of it? is the title of a report authored by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee and submitted to the British House of Commons. It was published in July 2006. The report suggested that the current system of recreational drug classification in the UK was arbitrary and unscientific and suggested a more scientific measure of harm be used for classifying drugs.

A quick look at the facts on alcohol…

Alcohol related deaths in the UK rose to 9,031 in 2008, up from 8,724 the previous year
– Branwen Jeffreys, Health Correspondent, BBC News

 Drug related deaths in the UK rose to 1,952 in 2008, up from 1900 the previous year
-St George's University of London, Drug related deaths in the UK, Annual report 2009

So almost 5 times more people died from alcohol related deaths than drug related deaths in 2008 yet alcohol isn't covered under the misuse of drugs act. Number of cannabis related deaths out of the 1,952 drug related deaths… ZERO.

Alcohol features in almost 50% of violent crime, yet isn't covered under the misuse of drugs act – this is because we know that for the large part alcohol is consumed responsibly by the majority of people who choose to use it.
We should be able to do the same with cannabis (And cannabis has been proven to assist with a number of different medical conditions) Alcohol has no proven medical benefits – the only one i could find was the use of it as an anti septic or disinfectant.
So alcohol is involved in more deaths & violent crime than cannabis yet is regulated and controlled – And not by the misuse of drugs act!

In essence we need to re-examine our attitudes towards cannabis and its criminalisation. The issue at hand is multi-faceted and extremely complex, this should not however stop us from engaging with the issue

Cannabis needs to be decriminalised and the sooner the better

Censorship

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Restoration of the Right to Silence

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Why is this idea important?

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Repealing the ‘Exceptions’ to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

The purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to re-integrate ex-offenders into society.  A person who has commited an offence which has consequently become spent and who hasn't reoffended since, should not, by virtue of the above Act, be compelled to disclose such an offence to a potential employer.  So, why are certain professions exempt from this?  It is submitted that the 'Exemptions' list to the above Act should be explicitly repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to re-integrate ex-offenders into society.  A person who has commited an offence which has consequently become spent and who hasn't reoffended since, should not, by virtue of the above Act, be compelled to disclose such an offence to a potential employer.  So, why are certain professions exempt from this?  It is submitted that the 'Exemptions' list to the above Act should be explicitly repealed.

Remove restrictions on issue of EEA family member residence cards

Amend Part 3 of The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 so that residence cards compliant with Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC are issued to  non-EEA spouses/civil partners of uK citizens when they are issued with UK identity cards and are granted leave to remain in the UK. The issue in particular should include non-EEA spouses/partners originating form countries listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

Why is this idea important?

Amend Part 3 of The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 so that residence cards compliant with Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC are issued to  non-EEA spouses/civil partners of uK citizens when they are issued with UK identity cards and are granted leave to remain in the UK. The issue in particular should include non-EEA spouses/partners originating form countries listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

Introduce a sunset clause to all legislation

To introduce a 10 year expiry  for all uk law.

A simple review an renewal process would ensure that politicians are kept busy and don't have time to invent new laws that no one wants.

Why is this idea important?

To introduce a 10 year expiry  for all uk law.

A simple review an renewal process would ensure that politicians are kept busy and don't have time to invent new laws that no one wants.

Address Government’s limited power to block or repeal EU Regulations

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Block/Repeal the European Investigation Order/European Arrest Warrant

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Why is this idea important?

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Stop theTraining Wage Bill Deplorable attack ?

Training Wage Bill 2010-11
Most of this article will be speculation because the Bill is a Private Members Bill so we cannot get the contents of the Bill.

The National Minimum Wage doesn’t appear to be disappearing any time soon. The official term would be to be repealed, however, I am stating it will become “dissolved” as such Bill is aiming for legislation to bypass (not remove or replace) the National Minimum Wage what appears to be beyond any Government scheme.

A Bill to make provision that persons receiving a training wage are exempt from legislation relating to the minimum wage; and for connected purposes.

The above is a description for the Bill. We can only assume this means apprentices etc. and those deemed to be “training” (outside of Government unemployment/training/employment courses) to be able to receive below the National Minimum Wage.

Why is this idea important?

Training Wage Bill 2010-11
Most of this article will be speculation because the Bill is a Private Members Bill so we cannot get the contents of the Bill.

The National Minimum Wage doesn’t appear to be disappearing any time soon. The official term would be to be repealed, however, I am stating it will become “dissolved” as such Bill is aiming for legislation to bypass (not remove or replace) the National Minimum Wage what appears to be beyond any Government scheme.

A Bill to make provision that persons receiving a training wage are exempt from legislation relating to the minimum wage; and for connected purposes.

The above is a description for the Bill. We can only assume this means apprentices etc. and those deemed to be “training” (outside of Government unemployment/training/employment courses) to be able to receive below the National Minimum Wage.

Repeal the law requiring training before removal of animal carcasses from our roads.

Repeal the law/regulations that require contractors to be trained in removing animal carcasses before they are permitted to do so.

This law/regulations led to the absurd situation recently, highlighted in the national media, where contractors painting markings on the road, left a gap around a dead animal, rather than simply move the carcass off the road and carry on.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the law/regulations that require contractors to be trained in removing animal carcasses before they are permitted to do so.

This law/regulations led to the absurd situation recently, highlighted in the national media, where contractors painting markings on the road, left a gap around a dead animal, rather than simply move the carcass off the road and carry on.

Various Victorian regulations

An eclectic selection of various detailed provisions from the 19th century:

1.  Any provision of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which is covered by legislation of general application.

2.  Sections 9, 19 and 20 of the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867 (against adverts on vehicles and shoe-shine stands)

3.  Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (and thus the Printer's Imprint Act 1961) (requiring publications to bear the owner's details for the purpose of pursuing alleged criminal libel)

4.  Sections 37 & 40 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (against assaulting a magistrate preserving a wreck and against hindering a seaman)

5.  Pedlars Act 1871 (requiring the licensing of travelling tradesmen)

6.  Newspaper, Libel and Registration Act 1881 (requiring the registration of all newspapers)

7.  Corn Returns Act 1882 (requiring that every seller of corn make a return to the Ministry)

Why is this idea important?

An eclectic selection of various detailed provisions from the 19th century:

1.  Any provision of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which is covered by legislation of general application.

2.  Sections 9, 19 and 20 of the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867 (against adverts on vehicles and shoe-shine stands)

3.  Newspapers, Printers and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869 (and thus the Printer's Imprint Act 1961) (requiring publications to bear the owner's details for the purpose of pursuing alleged criminal libel)

4.  Sections 37 & 40 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (against assaulting a magistrate preserving a wreck and against hindering a seaman)

5.  Pedlars Act 1871 (requiring the licensing of travelling tradesmen)

6.  Newspaper, Libel and Registration Act 1881 (requiring the registration of all newspapers)

7.  Corn Returns Act 1882 (requiring that every seller of corn make a return to the Ministry)

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Ban on Animal Experiments

To ban animal experimentation involving hurt or cruelty.

It is time for the UK to be the first state since 1945 to prevent this form of cruelty and to institute a new era in human-animal relations in the contemporary world.

Why is this idea important?

To ban animal experimentation involving hurt or cruelty.

It is time for the UK to be the first state since 1945 to prevent this form of cruelty and to institute a new era in human-animal relations in the contemporary world.

Repeal the Human Rights Act

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Make Credit Card Companies Face Penalties For Funding Unlawful Trade

There are, rightly, severe penalties for downloading child pornography via the internet. However, this is normally possible only when the purchaser uses their credit card. Thus the credit card companies are complict in the unlawful supply of such images. No seller can accept card payments without an elaborate procedure to set it up with the card company. Therefore, the identity of the seller must be known to the credit card company and they profit from the unlawful sales. 

Why is this idea important?

There are, rightly, severe penalties for downloading child pornography via the internet. However, this is normally possible only when the purchaser uses their credit card. Thus the credit card companies are complict in the unlawful supply of such images. No seller can accept card payments without an elaborate procedure to set it up with the card company. Therefore, the identity of the seller must be known to the credit card company and they profit from the unlawful sales. 

Scrap entire laws and entire systems of regulation.

This project is going well so far – there are many excellent ideas and comments.

However, for this project to end well, the government has to be bold.

For example, it ought to come up with a whole list of laws that can be repealed entirely (It can start with most of the laws passed in the last ten years). It is no good just repealing only small parts of different Acts of Parliament and introducing new laws to modify others, because then we will end up with more laws than we have now – and that would be a massive failure!

It also needs to roll back the state from entire areas of our lives and scrap entire systems of regulation. It must accept that some things it currently regulates just shouldn't be any of the state's business anymore – the government can't just tinker a bit here and there and end up with something very similar to what we have now!

Between us, we can suggest many things that can be scrapped entirely. None of these suggestions will receive universal support. However, if this project is to be a success, the government must push some of them through anyway.

On the other hand, if the government offers up nothing but a few token gestures of reform, we will not end up with simpler laws, greater fairness and less bureaucracy – we will be almost exactly where we are now!

Why is this idea important?

This project is going well so far – there are many excellent ideas and comments.

However, for this project to end well, the government has to be bold.

For example, it ought to come up with a whole list of laws that can be repealed entirely (It can start with most of the laws passed in the last ten years). It is no good just repealing only small parts of different Acts of Parliament and introducing new laws to modify others, because then we will end up with more laws than we have now – and that would be a massive failure!

It also needs to roll back the state from entire areas of our lives and scrap entire systems of regulation. It must accept that some things it currently regulates just shouldn't be any of the state's business anymore – the government can't just tinker a bit here and there and end up with something very similar to what we have now!

Between us, we can suggest many things that can be scrapped entirely. None of these suggestions will receive universal support. However, if this project is to be a success, the government must push some of them through anyway.

On the other hand, if the government offers up nothing but a few token gestures of reform, we will not end up with simpler laws, greater fairness and less bureaucracy – we will be almost exactly where we are now!

Blanket No Smoking Inside is unreasonable, Smoking License ?

OK, smoking is bad for you, so is driving a car you can die in an accident, so is crossing the road you can get hit by a bus. So is alcohol, so is fatty food. Many things are bad but in moderation people enjoy them. If you enjoy something ,even something statistically bad for you, it might not actually be so bad after all. If someone is going to abuse something no law will change their mind. Banning smoking across the bars, restaurants, offices ok, its not pleasant and smokers are diminishing in percentage, ok its understandable, but making the ban an absolute blanket ban with no exceptions (apart from the parliment building which is too cynical to even think about, one rule for them and one rule for us.) was over done.

There used to be around the country especially in Marble Arch, London, tea shops that sold hookahs to smoke, a totally different kind of tobacco use to chuffing 40 Malboro a day. They were open 24 hours and most being run by muslims didn't serve alcohol.

They are a middle eastern cultural highlight of London, they are open late and make a perfect place to end the evening at 2-3am, rather than in some sterile night club buying over priced cocktails and ending up plastered for no real reason.

Some still manage to eeck out a living with people outside in the rain on the pavement, trying to enjoy their water pipe that can take an hour or more to smoke, but the fact is that people visited those places for the sole reason of enjoying a water pipe, its not something you are going to load up at home or even do on a daily basis. Its not that terrible or addictive, and why would you want to go and infringe on peoples civil liberties to enjoy a cultural pastime.

Polo playing or motor racing is probably more likely to get you killed than smoking the odd Hookah is that banned ?

If people gather in a place for a specific reason of their own free will, and all are there for the purposes of enjoying a water pipe, or I suppose in other cases a cigar, or even smokers want to gather and have a beer together, why should that be banned ? If everyone in the room consents to smoking taking place, what right does the government have to march onto private property and declare its banned ?

Couldn't a tea shop that offers hookas, or a cigar bar, or even a popular watering hole that is mainly frequented by smokers be able to apply for a permit to have smoking. ? There is no reason why this shouldn't be allowed.

Why is this idea important?

OK, smoking is bad for you, so is driving a car you can die in an accident, so is crossing the road you can get hit by a bus. So is alcohol, so is fatty food. Many things are bad but in moderation people enjoy them. If you enjoy something ,even something statistically bad for you, it might not actually be so bad after all. If someone is going to abuse something no law will change their mind. Banning smoking across the bars, restaurants, offices ok, its not pleasant and smokers are diminishing in percentage, ok its understandable, but making the ban an absolute blanket ban with no exceptions (apart from the parliment building which is too cynical to even think about, one rule for them and one rule for us.) was over done.

There used to be around the country especially in Marble Arch, London, tea shops that sold hookahs to smoke, a totally different kind of tobacco use to chuffing 40 Malboro a day. They were open 24 hours and most being run by muslims didn't serve alcohol.

They are a middle eastern cultural highlight of London, they are open late and make a perfect place to end the evening at 2-3am, rather than in some sterile night club buying over priced cocktails and ending up plastered for no real reason.

Some still manage to eeck out a living with people outside in the rain on the pavement, trying to enjoy their water pipe that can take an hour or more to smoke, but the fact is that people visited those places for the sole reason of enjoying a water pipe, its not something you are going to load up at home or even do on a daily basis. Its not that terrible or addictive, and why would you want to go and infringe on peoples civil liberties to enjoy a cultural pastime.

Polo playing or motor racing is probably more likely to get you killed than smoking the odd Hookah is that banned ?

If people gather in a place for a specific reason of their own free will, and all are there for the purposes of enjoying a water pipe, or I suppose in other cases a cigar, or even smokers want to gather and have a beer together, why should that be banned ? If everyone in the room consents to smoking taking place, what right does the government have to march onto private property and declare its banned ?

Couldn't a tea shop that offers hookas, or a cigar bar, or even a popular watering hole that is mainly frequented by smokers be able to apply for a permit to have smoking. ? There is no reason why this shouldn't be allowed.

Repeal the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

The fundamental issue is why are those who live within the boundaries of national parks in England and Wales not entitled to the same level of local democracy as elsewhere in the country?


 

Why is this idea important?

The fundamental issue is why are those who live within the boundaries of national parks in England and Wales not entitled to the same level of local democracy as elsewhere in the country?


 

Amend the Smoking Ban

Relax the current law, returning freedom to buisness owners, I won't say too much about this as many other people have sited it.
Also, ensure that all public buildings, such as hospitals and Universities, have a covered smoking area. This removes smokers from the entrances/exists to the building, and also from the streets around it.

Why is this idea important?

Relax the current law, returning freedom to buisness owners, I won't say too much about this as many other people have sited it.
Also, ensure that all public buildings, such as hospitals and Universities, have a covered smoking area. This removes smokers from the entrances/exists to the building, and also from the streets around it.

The Smoking Ban

Repeal it.  Simple as that.  Give british pubs a fighting chance.  People don't go to these places for their health.  That's why we're not capaigning for smoking in gyms. 

While you're at it get rid of the tax on tobacco and make us use the money saved to open a private healthcare plan so we'll be out of the NHS's hair. 

Not brain surgery is it?

Why is this idea important?

Repeal it.  Simple as that.  Give british pubs a fighting chance.  People don't go to these places for their health.  That's why we're not capaigning for smoking in gyms. 

While you're at it get rid of the tax on tobacco and make us use the money saved to open a private healthcare plan so we'll be out of the NHS's hair. 

Not brain surgery is it?

Scrap the Human Rights Act

This society is, as far as I'm concerned, as decent and fair as might be realistically expected without thsi legislation. It is so vague and all encompassing, that, although laudible in its aims, has become a refuge for a fair amount of people who have no qualms about violating other peoples' human rights.I am aware that the media present a skewed picture of the world at large, but stories seem to abound of gangsters, terrorists, abusers, drug dealers and their ilk insisting on the very human rights that they have deprived their victims.

Why is this idea important?

This society is, as far as I'm concerned, as decent and fair as might be realistically expected without thsi legislation. It is so vague and all encompassing, that, although laudible in its aims, has become a refuge for a fair amount of people who have no qualms about violating other peoples' human rights.I am aware that the media present a skewed picture of the world at large, but stories seem to abound of gangsters, terrorists, abusers, drug dealers and their ilk insisting on the very human rights that they have deprived their victims.