Allow cycling on pavements

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

Why is this idea important?

Ban the law which states you cannot cycle on pavements. One should just be asked to cycle safely by paying due attention to others. Cycling on pavements does not kill people and causes unnecessary time-wasting by police forces. If a cyclist is knocked over he/she is always going to come off worse, so it is in their best interests not to bump into anything. This natural law requires no other cycle-restricting law to be in place, since falling off and hurting yourself is a much better deterrent than being 'caught' by the police.

By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

 
By extension, this should also apply to red-lights, since once again, the natural law of falling off bike and getting hurt is a much better deterrent than cameras and police. If you jump a red as a cyclist, you know you will die unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. Hence a better deterrent.

Health and Safety laws – radical amendments needed

Safety is a state of mind, not a set of box-ticking procedures.  The various existing ‘health and safety’ laws need to be radically amended.  Currently they are concerned primarily with establishing ‘paper trails’ so that blame can be established rather than safety achieved.  They have become a paradise for lawyers, officious bureaucrats, egregious insurance companies, and the organizers of all manner of fatuous (and expensive) ‘training courses’.  They have also actively encouraged the growth of the pernicious ‘compensation culture’.   

Two suggestions: 

‘Duty of care’ – wherever this phrase occurs it should be qualified in such a way as to ensure that it cannot be taken as reducing the obligation of individuals to be responsible for themselves. 

‘Risk assessments’ – Even the HSE’s advice on these is flawed, being based on the subjective assessment of what *might* happen.  It is a matter of basic physics that almost anything *might* happen, a proper risk assessment should properly quantify the risk for comparison with other risks so that a rational judgement can be made.  e.g. a council banned window boxes because they *might* fall off and injure people.  The correct procedure would have been to determine nationally the number of window boxes above say 6ft, how many have fallen off, and how many have seriously injured or killed someone.  Without these data, a *rational* risk assessment *cannot* be made and any State/Local Government intervention should have no statutory force, but be confined to advice.

An objective assessment of the legislation might be revealing – e.g. how many were seriously injured/killed in particular industries before and after the legislation, (with due allowances for routine improvements in machinery, procedures etc,) and how many people have suffered ill-health or death due to over-weaning application of the legislation – failed businesses, needless loss of efficiency, stress-related illness etc.

Why is this idea important?

Safety is a state of mind, not a set of box-ticking procedures.  The various existing ‘health and safety’ laws need to be radically amended.  Currently they are concerned primarily with establishing ‘paper trails’ so that blame can be established rather than safety achieved.  They have become a paradise for lawyers, officious bureaucrats, egregious insurance companies, and the organizers of all manner of fatuous (and expensive) ‘training courses’.  They have also actively encouraged the growth of the pernicious ‘compensation culture’.   

Two suggestions: 

‘Duty of care’ – wherever this phrase occurs it should be qualified in such a way as to ensure that it cannot be taken as reducing the obligation of individuals to be responsible for themselves. 

‘Risk assessments’ – Even the HSE’s advice on these is flawed, being based on the subjective assessment of what *might* happen.  It is a matter of basic physics that almost anything *might* happen, a proper risk assessment should properly quantify the risk for comparison with other risks so that a rational judgement can be made.  e.g. a council banned window boxes because they *might* fall off and injure people.  The correct procedure would have been to determine nationally the number of window boxes above say 6ft, how many have fallen off, and how many have seriously injured or killed someone.  Without these data, a *rational* risk assessment *cannot* be made and any State/Local Government intervention should have no statutory force, but be confined to advice.

An objective assessment of the legislation might be revealing – e.g. how many were seriously injured/killed in particular industries before and after the legislation, (with due allowances for routine improvements in machinery, procedures etc,) and how many people have suffered ill-health or death due to over-weaning application of the legislation – failed businesses, needless loss of efficiency, stress-related illness etc.

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.

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Make It A Legal Requirement That Local Councils Only Raise Charges Against Specific And Costed Expenditure.

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

Why is this idea important?

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

Stop Quangos making up safety rules

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Why is this idea important?

Health and safetly legislation is by and large well written and well thought out.

However official bodies (and Ofsted is a big offender) make up interpretations of the law which are ludicrous. School trips can't happen because "staffing ratios" are interpreted rigidly instead of allowing schools to decide what staffing ratio might be necessary. A childminder I know was asked by an Ofsted inspector to have a "cat food policy" because of "health and Safety". Theres nothing in legislation which requires this, it was just made up.

So don't scrap the legislation, put the brakes on those local authorities and quangos.

Prosecute The Parents, Not The Child.

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Why is this idea important?

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Amend all ‘child protection’ legislation so that it does not apply to teenagers

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Why is this idea important?

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Repeal the age of consent for sex

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Recruit Carefully For The Police.

Police recruitment has been from a very low level and to fullfill very limited expectations from officers and public alike. This must be improved as a matter of urgency. New standards must be set and driven forward to achieve a much more educated and civilised police force (not service).

Why is this idea important?

Police recruitment has been from a very low level and to fullfill very limited expectations from officers and public alike. This must be improved as a matter of urgency. New standards must be set and driven forward to achieve a much more educated and civilised police force (not service).

Remove reversing alarms from vehicles

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Why is this idea important?

The current requirement to have all vehicles larger than a car sound a shrill alarm when reversing is unnecessary.

It is the driver's responsibility to make sure it is safe to proceed at all times. The current status quo shifts this and is used to intimidate visually impaired and other people out of the driver's way. If the driver cannot see it is clear he or she should enlist the help of a colleague and/or use side mirrors and proceed with more caution.

If nothing else at least the volume could be reduced. If a vehicle is in danger of hitting someone, they must be reasonably close. It cannot be necessary to have the alarms heard 500m away. And a person who is severely visually and hearing impaired will be in danger from traffic no matter what excessive noise is made.

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Eliminate Bonfire Night legislation

Eliminate the fuzzy Health and Safety legislation which prevents us from enjoying the warmth of a bonfire on Bonfire night.  The fears around  "Health and safety" have produced a situation in which our children can no longer play with sparklers and we all stand around freezing  on a cold November evening while watching the bonfire from the edges of an exclusion zone. This is ridiculous.  

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the fuzzy Health and Safety legislation which prevents us from enjoying the warmth of a bonfire on Bonfire night.  The fears around  "Health and safety" have produced a situation in which our children can no longer play with sparklers and we all stand around freezing  on a cold November evening while watching the bonfire from the edges of an exclusion zone. This is ridiculous.  

A Government mechanism to support offender responsibilities

A Government initiated fund based on the "STUDENT LOANS" model to be made available to support all convicted individuals unable to pay expences and/or fines enforced by a court of law. The fund would subsequently claw back the loan in exactly the same way as a student loan and would  involve a similar rate of interest on the outstanding amount.

The fund should be available for an individual to claim up to three separate loans. A fourth loan should only be allowed when all previous loans have been repaid.

For all individuals loans should remain payable after bankrupcy so that a loan of this kind could only lapse on death of the individual.

Why is this idea important?

A Government initiated fund based on the "STUDENT LOANS" model to be made available to support all convicted individuals unable to pay expences and/or fines enforced by a court of law. The fund would subsequently claw back the loan in exactly the same way as a student loan and would  involve a similar rate of interest on the outstanding amount.

The fund should be available for an individual to claim up to three separate loans. A fourth loan should only be allowed when all previous loans have been repaid.

For all individuals loans should remain payable after bankrupcy so that a loan of this kind could only lapse on death of the individual.

To re-balance fair road and pavement use for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Vehicles in accident the BIGGER vehicle should always be blamed

In Holland, there is a Simple law that  – in case of an accident the bigger vehicle user is always at fault ie Trucks have to look out for cars, bikes and pedestrians, Cars for Bikes and pedestrians, and bicycles for pedestrians.

This is common sense and makes road and pavements fair for all users. 

It means cars have to drive more carefully around bicycles, and bicycles have to ride carefully around pedestrians. This law would be used in conjunction with repealing the law banning cycling on pavements – and ensures that cyclists respect pedestrians.

Why is this idea important?

In Holland, there is a Simple law that  – in case of an accident the bigger vehicle user is always at fault ie Trucks have to look out for cars, bikes and pedestrians, Cars for Bikes and pedestrians, and bicycles for pedestrians.

This is common sense and makes road and pavements fair for all users. 

It means cars have to drive more carefully around bicycles, and bicycles have to ride carefully around pedestrians. This law would be used in conjunction with repealing the law banning cycling on pavements – and ensures that cyclists respect pedestrians.

Introduce a legal level of action/caution individuals must take to prevent themselves coming to harm.

We've all seen the adverts. "I was walking through the lobby and the floor was wet with no sign", "I had to fix the fire alarm and my employer gave me the wrong type of ladder for the job", "the boxes are tied with this wrapping that always get just left on the floor.  I caught my foot and just fell".  Two of these could have been avoided if the people involved looked where they were stepping, and the other if the guy climbing the ladder had been properly trained in choosing the correct ladder for the job.  I would like to see a legal requirement for people to take a certain level of responsibility for protecting themselves from harm.  Obviously there will be many situations where an individual could not have avoided harm, and it would be ridiculous to expect everyone to be able to avoid moving hazards, falling objects, etc.  However, I would like to see a requirement for people to look where they are walking, and not use tools or aids they are not trained for unless it is at their own risk.

Why is this idea important?

We've all seen the adverts. "I was walking through the lobby and the floor was wet with no sign", "I had to fix the fire alarm and my employer gave me the wrong type of ladder for the job", "the boxes are tied with this wrapping that always get just left on the floor.  I caught my foot and just fell".  Two of these could have been avoided if the people involved looked where they were stepping, and the other if the guy climbing the ladder had been properly trained in choosing the correct ladder for the job.  I would like to see a legal requirement for people to take a certain level of responsibility for protecting themselves from harm.  Obviously there will be many situations where an individual could not have avoided harm, and it would be ridiculous to expect everyone to be able to avoid moving hazards, falling objects, etc.  However, I would like to see a requirement for people to look where they are walking, and not use tools or aids they are not trained for unless it is at their own risk.