In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).
I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.
I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.
Why is this idea important?
In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).
I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.
I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.
The complete abolition of chancel repair liability
Why is this idea important?
The complete abolition of chancel repair liability
Repeal Sections 166, 166A and 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which forbid the resale of certain tickets.
Why is this idea important?
Repeal Sections 166, 166A and 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which forbid the resale of certain tickets.
As a Hong Kong resident, I welcome the arrangement that Hong Kong SAR passport holders are eligible for visa-free access to Ukraine, UAE, Qatar etc. These countries offer visa-free access for full British citizens and HKSAR passport holders, but not British Nationals (Overseas). However, I would like to suggest that that same arrangement should be extended to British National (Overseas) passport holders.
Why is this idea important?
As a Hong Kong resident, I welcome the arrangement that Hong Kong SAR passport holders are eligible for visa-free access to Ukraine, UAE, Qatar etc. These countries offer visa-free access for full British citizens and HKSAR passport holders, but not British Nationals (Overseas). However, I would like to suggest that that same arrangement should be extended to British National (Overseas) passport holders.
"Black/white/hispanic/asian community representatives are not currently doing enough to help tackle youth crime within their respective communities".
Unfortunately under the current wording of the Public Order Act 1986, a temperately worded statement of the kind above would place whoever uttered it at serious risk of arrest – even if if the intention behind such words was simply to engage the attention of revelant community representatives to bring about the changes which only they can effectively provide at a grass roots level. However, the Public Order Act 1986 currently proscribes arrest for "Threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred", and therefore, innocent motives are not always protected. The above statement could be considered "insulting", and might even be deemed "likely to stir up hatred" in certain circumstances – but should I be held liable for this? Such an objective test leaves all kinds of public discourse liable to arrest despite the innocent (albeit perhaps misguided) intentions of the speaker. I don't believe a pluralist, democratic society should be prosecuting its citizens for temperate criticism with innocent motives, and I believe a better balance would be as follows:
In the subjective part of these provisions, "insulting, abusive or threatening words intended to stir up hatred" should remain on the statute book as is currently the case
However, vis-a-vis the objective test of "likely to stir up hatred", only "threatening or abusive words" should be arrestable.
This way, temperate criticism with innocent motives of the kind I outlined at the start would be protected, yet those untrue allegations against the whole community could be continued to be dealt with under the threatening provision, and racial slurs/seriously inflammatory adjectives under the abusive threashold, without having to prove that the speaker intended to be threatening or intended to be abusive.
This seems like a more reasonable balance if we are to prevent convictions similar to that which befell Shirley Brown in June of this year, a black councillor from Bristol who was found guilty of using words "likely to incite racial hatred" when she called another black councillor a coconut (imputing that she was really white on the inside). This may be insulting, but should such insult be prosecuted if the speaker didn't intend to incite racial hatred? To my mind, it should not.
Why is this idea important?
"Black/white/hispanic/asian community representatives are not currently doing enough to help tackle youth crime within their respective communities".
Unfortunately under the current wording of the Public Order Act 1986, a temperately worded statement of the kind above would place whoever uttered it at serious risk of arrest – even if if the intention behind such words was simply to engage the attention of revelant community representatives to bring about the changes which only they can effectively provide at a grass roots level. However, the Public Order Act 1986 currently proscribes arrest for "Threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred", and therefore, innocent motives are not always protected. The above statement could be considered "insulting", and might even be deemed "likely to stir up hatred" in certain circumstances – but should I be held liable for this? Such an objective test leaves all kinds of public discourse liable to arrest despite the innocent (albeit perhaps misguided) intentions of the speaker. I don't believe a pluralist, democratic society should be prosecuting its citizens for temperate criticism with innocent motives, and I believe a better balance would be as follows:
In the subjective part of these provisions, "insulting, abusive or threatening words intended to stir up hatred" should remain on the statute book as is currently the case
However, vis-a-vis the objective test of "likely to stir up hatred", only "threatening or abusive words" should be arrestable.
This way, temperate criticism with innocent motives of the kind I outlined at the start would be protected, yet those untrue allegations against the whole community could be continued to be dealt with under the threatening provision, and racial slurs/seriously inflammatory adjectives under the abusive threashold, without having to prove that the speaker intended to be threatening or intended to be abusive.
This seems like a more reasonable balance if we are to prevent convictions similar to that which befell Shirley Brown in June of this year, a black councillor from Bristol who was found guilty of using words "likely to incite racial hatred" when she called another black councillor a coconut (imputing that she was really white on the inside). This may be insulting, but should such insult be prosecuted if the speaker didn't intend to incite racial hatred? To my mind, it should not.
I think all traffic lights should be removed at roundabouts and islands especially the small ones, it seems in derby anyway there are lights at every roundabout.
Why is this idea important?
I think all traffic lights should be removed at roundabouts and islands especially the small ones, it seems in derby anyway there are lights at every roundabout.
All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.
We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.
Why is this idea important?
All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.
We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.
Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.
having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.
I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.
Why is this idea important?
Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.
having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.
I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.
Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.
It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.
I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.
Why is this idea important?
Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.
It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.
I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.
The National Curriculum has been disastrous for primary education and should go.
Ofsted has driven more teachers insane than even the worst pupils from hell. It should be shrunk to the size needed to turn the screws on the worst state schools (worst defined by examination results, more later), and leave the rest of the schools to take care of themselves.
Desperately needed is an independent body that will establish stable educational standards, from 10-year-olds to A-levels.
Why is this idea important?
The National Curriculum has been disastrous for primary education and should go.
Ofsted has driven more teachers insane than even the worst pupils from hell. It should be shrunk to the size needed to turn the screws on the worst state schools (worst defined by examination results, more later), and leave the rest of the schools to take care of themselves.
Desperately needed is an independent body that will establish stable educational standards, from 10-year-olds to A-levels.
Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission
Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.
No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.
100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.
Why is this idea important?
Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission
Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.
No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.
100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.
Abolish them all, accept that some people are better able to drive carefully at whatever speed than others, the only time when people need to get points on their licence is when their driving could be argued to constitute a risk to other road users.
Why is this idea important?
Abolish them all, accept that some people are better able to drive carefully at whatever speed than others, the only time when people need to get points on their licence is when their driving could be argued to constitute a risk to other road users.
Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.
Why is this idea important?
Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.
This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation.
Why is this idea important?
This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation.
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.
View the latest research and papers in psychopharmacology and (re)classify drugs acccordingly. Also, take on board all the experts have to say on the matter. Afterall, they are the experts with (depending on the source) no hidden agendas, bias or vested interest.
Why is this idea important?
View the latest research and papers in psychopharmacology and (re)classify drugs acccordingly. Also, take on board all the experts have to say on the matter. Afterall, they are the experts with (depending on the source) no hidden agendas, bias or vested interest.
Review the management systems in place to ensure Ombudsman, LGO and PHSO are accountable for their conduct. The current option is to pay for a Judicial review if you do not agree their decision, even if their files is missing submitted evidence or the assessor made errors. Conduct can only be reported to the Select Committee of the Commons.
Ensure timescales are used to respondent replies.
Impose accountability for decisions by providing full information to complainants on the basis for decisions and allow appeal, not as at present a review ( of a flawed file) upon which a decision has been made.
Ensure LGO and PHSO adhere to FOI legislation – they should be exemplars!
Why is this idea important?
Review the management systems in place to ensure Ombudsman, LGO and PHSO are accountable for their conduct. The current option is to pay for a Judicial review if you do not agree their decision, even if their files is missing submitted evidence or the assessor made errors. Conduct can only be reported to the Select Committee of the Commons.
Ensure timescales are used to respondent replies.
Impose accountability for decisions by providing full information to complainants on the basis for decisions and allow appeal, not as at present a review ( of a flawed file) upon which a decision has been made.
Ensure LGO and PHSO adhere to FOI legislation – they should be exemplars!