Abolish the TV Licence

It's nice not having adverts on BBC channels, but couldn't they find another way to fund the BBC?

The BBC is an organisation set up purely to 'inform, educate and entertain'.  Which is a good thing, but isn't that what all TV channels do? The BBC could stick to their motto still by focussing on the internet instead, which would be cheaper.

All TV owners in the country have to pay for the BBC, yet everyone else in the world can watch it's content for free online!

Why is this idea important?

It's nice not having adverts on BBC channels, but couldn't they find another way to fund the BBC?

The BBC is an organisation set up purely to 'inform, educate and entertain'.  Which is a good thing, but isn't that what all TV channels do? The BBC could stick to their motto still by focussing on the internet instead, which would be cheaper.

All TV owners in the country have to pay for the BBC, yet everyone else in the world can watch it's content for free online!

Abolish the TV Liscence

It is nice not having adverts on BBC channels, but couldn't they find a different way to make money and stop charging every TV owner for the TV liscence?

We pay for the BBC, yet everybody else in the world can watch it's content for free on the internet!

Why is this idea important?

It is nice not having adverts on BBC channels, but couldn't they find a different way to make money and stop charging every TV owner for the TV liscence?

We pay for the BBC, yet everybody else in the world can watch it's content for free on the internet!

Raise or scrap limits on maximum investment by individuals in co-operative businesses.

The maximum legally-permitted investment by an individual in a co-operative business is currently £20000.

My idea is to raise this limit, either to a higher fixed value, or annually in a way which is index-linked to the cost of living; or to scrap this limit altogether.

Why is this idea important?

The maximum legally-permitted investment by an individual in a co-operative business is currently £20000.

My idea is to raise this limit, either to a higher fixed value, or annually in a way which is index-linked to the cost of living; or to scrap this limit altogether.

Reducing metal thefts by new rules for scrap yards

Suggested legislation/regulation to greatly reduce the incidence of theft of metals:

(1) Require scrap-metal dealers to record names and proof of identity and residence (eg driving licence number, address from recent utility bill, etc) from everyone who sells to them.

(2) Prohibit payment by cash on the spot.  Payment would be by cheque posted to the seller at the address demonstrated above.

(3)  Perhaps require scrap yards to hold purchased metal materials for 14 or 28 days, which would improve the chances of recovering items reported stolen.

Why is this idea important?

Suggested legislation/regulation to greatly reduce the incidence of theft of metals:

(1) Require scrap-metal dealers to record names and proof of identity and residence (eg driving licence number, address from recent utility bill, etc) from everyone who sells to them.

(2) Prohibit payment by cash on the spot.  Payment would be by cheque posted to the seller at the address demonstrated above.

(3)  Perhaps require scrap yards to hold purchased metal materials for 14 or 28 days, which would improve the chances of recovering items reported stolen.

Scrap Sections 12-15 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988

This Act dates from the pre-digital age and is no longer appropriate. There are a huge number of published works that are in a 'limbo' situation where they are not in print but still governed by copyright laws. Change the rules so that once a work has been out of print for a certain time (say, 3 years) it automatically loses its copyright status (with a possible opt-out mechanism for those authors who do not wish that to happen despite no longer earning royalties).

Why is this idea important?

This Act dates from the pre-digital age and is no longer appropriate. There are a huge number of published works that are in a 'limbo' situation where they are not in print but still governed by copyright laws. Change the rules so that once a work has been out of print for a certain time (say, 3 years) it automatically loses its copyright status (with a possible opt-out mechanism for those authors who do not wish that to happen despite no longer earning royalties).

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.

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!