Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Keep Civil Servant Details Private

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Why is this idea important?

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Secure Bank Payments

The right to secure banking must be restored. Debit cards are not a secure payment system and are worse than cheques. Banks must be forced to give customers a secure payment system.

 Banks have decided to eliminate cheques just as soon as they can get away with it. They have already forced customers to have debit cards, and persuaded most retailers to drop cheques in favour of debit cards.

 Why? Supposedly because debit cards are safer and cost less to process. The reality is that debit cards transfer all risk from the bank to the customer – if the customer alleges a fraudulent transaction it is the customers problem, not the banks. In the past the bank had to prove that the customer had been negligent, now it is the other way round.

 Cheques provide clear physical proof of a transaction. Debit cards do not – there is no signature to be proved and no proof of time or location (there have been instances of these being faked). Every single time someone makes a transaction, they give the other party all the information required for fraudulent transactions by phone – 16 digit card number, account name and expiry date. No biometric is required – signatures may not have been perfect, but a fake can usually be spotted. No finite document is required – the card details do not wear out.

 Debit cards were supposedly more secure because the chips could not be copied. But 4 years after introduction pretty well every debit card still has an easily copied magnetic strip.

 Anyone can use a stolen or fake card with impunity. Cards must carry photos and, to detect different photos, the photo must be displayed and transmitted to the bank and stored each time the card is used.

 Banks must report all fraudulent use to the Police, no matter how small. Currently handling is delegated to banks, who may be tempted to sweep it under the carpet.

 All fraud must be deducted from bank profits and clearly reported as such in Annual Reports to shareholders. It must not be considered an operating cost, or passed on to customers.

Here is what is essential:

Change the law so the main theft risk lies with the bank, not the card holder.

Change the system to one where data used in one transaction is useless for another.

Validate all transactions with a random biometric including cardholder not present.

Withdraw all magnetic strip devices urgently.

Report all theft/fraud to the Police.

Deduct all financial losses from theft/fraud from profits and clearly report this to shareholders.

Why is this idea important?

The right to secure banking must be restored. Debit cards are not a secure payment system and are worse than cheques. Banks must be forced to give customers a secure payment system.

 Banks have decided to eliminate cheques just as soon as they can get away with it. They have already forced customers to have debit cards, and persuaded most retailers to drop cheques in favour of debit cards.

 Why? Supposedly because debit cards are safer and cost less to process. The reality is that debit cards transfer all risk from the bank to the customer – if the customer alleges a fraudulent transaction it is the customers problem, not the banks. In the past the bank had to prove that the customer had been negligent, now it is the other way round.

 Cheques provide clear physical proof of a transaction. Debit cards do not – there is no signature to be proved and no proof of time or location (there have been instances of these being faked). Every single time someone makes a transaction, they give the other party all the information required for fraudulent transactions by phone – 16 digit card number, account name and expiry date. No biometric is required – signatures may not have been perfect, but a fake can usually be spotted. No finite document is required – the card details do not wear out.

 Debit cards were supposedly more secure because the chips could not be copied. But 4 years after introduction pretty well every debit card still has an easily copied magnetic strip.

 Anyone can use a stolen or fake card with impunity. Cards must carry photos and, to detect different photos, the photo must be displayed and transmitted to the bank and stored each time the card is used.

 Banks must report all fraudulent use to the Police, no matter how small. Currently handling is delegated to banks, who may be tempted to sweep it under the carpet.

 All fraud must be deducted from bank profits and clearly reported as such in Annual Reports to shareholders. It must not be considered an operating cost, or passed on to customers.

Here is what is essential:

Change the law so the main theft risk lies with the bank, not the card holder.

Change the system to one where data used in one transaction is useless for another.

Validate all transactions with a random biometric including cardholder not present.

Withdraw all magnetic strip devices urgently.

Report all theft/fraud to the Police.

Deduct all financial losses from theft/fraud from profits and clearly report this to shareholders.

Restore Civil Liberties Whilst Protecting us from Terrorists

I am all in favour of restoring Civil Liberties and crushing discrimination.  However, we need to do it in such a way that we are not creating more problems further down the road.

I am very concerned about the threats posed by certain radical and fundamentalist members of society and their ability to stir up hatred, violence and terrorism.  We need to make sure that we create freedoms but at the same time are much tougher on those who are intent on wrecking our country.

I know it does not sound a very liberal idea but I really would like to see the death penalty restored to deal with terrorist bombers and the like.  I would also like to see the death penalty restored for serial killers, serial rapists, child abusers/paedofiles and drug pushers.  I would suggest that the law be there for use in extreme cases!

Why is this idea important?

I am all in favour of restoring Civil Liberties and crushing discrimination.  However, we need to do it in such a way that we are not creating more problems further down the road.

I am very concerned about the threats posed by certain radical and fundamentalist members of society and their ability to stir up hatred, violence and terrorism.  We need to make sure that we create freedoms but at the same time are much tougher on those who are intent on wrecking our country.

I know it does not sound a very liberal idea but I really would like to see the death penalty restored to deal with terrorist bombers and the like.  I would also like to see the death penalty restored for serial killers, serial rapists, child abusers/paedofiles and drug pushers.  I would suggest that the law be there for use in extreme cases!

Private Data Accessability and Availability

Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information.  While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.

Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges.  Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police.  Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information.  While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.

Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges.  Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police.  Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.

 

 

CRB CHECK FOR VOLUNTEERING ON SCHOOL TRIP

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Why is this idea important?

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Surveilance Subjects Must (eventually) be Notified

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

Why is this idea important?

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

CRB Checks

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

Why is this idea important?

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

Remove restrictions on photography in public places and private property.

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

A Fresh Canvas

So many of the almost 3,500 laws affecting civil liberties and introduced during the past three terms of the labour government seem to be pieces of an almost sinister jigsaw of control over freedoms by the state that it might make more sense wiping the slate clean, repealing all these laws and establishing a new mode of law introduction a key element of which involves 'the people' having the final say in whether a law is passed or not. A final 12-man/woman jury to vett the wisdom of the politicians and judges who, with all due respect, often operate, live and function far from the real world on the streets of London's Kilburn or Camden, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow, Arbroath, Plymouth etc.

Why is this idea important?

So many of the almost 3,500 laws affecting civil liberties and introduced during the past three terms of the labour government seem to be pieces of an almost sinister jigsaw of control over freedoms by the state that it might make more sense wiping the slate clean, repealing all these laws and establishing a new mode of law introduction a key element of which involves 'the people' having the final say in whether a law is passed or not. A final 12-man/woman jury to vett the wisdom of the politicians and judges who, with all due respect, often operate, live and function far from the real world on the streets of London's Kilburn or Camden, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow, Arbroath, Plymouth etc.

Issue a Card for Benefits (no Cash)

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Why is this idea important?

The government could do a deal with a major credit card company to supply all benefit claiments with a card. This card could be set to not allow purchases of alcohol or tobacco (or any other goods deemed unsuitable). The acceptance of the cards could be limited to specific companies that have tendered for the supply of benefit goods.

  The right to accept benefit cards could be put out to tender ( as all other Government supply contracts are) and a selection of National and local stores become approved suppliers in a framework agreement. The contracts would be huge and a real discount could be negotiated from the retail prices in the stores.

Correct the HRA and Data Protection Act so data can be kept indefinitely but not used unless authorised

The headlines about Russian spies recently shows that enemies of this country and our freedoms exist and can (and are?) be among us now.  That these "sleepers" were embedded decades ago emphasises the great need for us to be thorough in keeping and maintaining the records needed to enable us to track these people down.  The same is true for the non-government enemies; the terrorists and single issue extremists.

However, we as citizens need to be comfortable that our Government is not abusing this information to further its own ends; it is disgraceful that Local Government is abusing legislation regulating the Intelligence Services for such trivialities as dog fouling and car parking offences.  This is unacceptable and demeans both the Public and the Intelligence agencies protecting us – it must be stopped immediately.

My proposals are: 

1)that local government is immediately forbidden from using HRA/RIPA/ISA legislation

2) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies  are able to keep any quantity of data collected legally for unlimited periods

3) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies can only use this data when expressly authorised to do so in an auditable way and ensuring that the data they have is accurate and used in a proportionate fashion.

The intention is to remove the feeling that we the Public are being spied on for trivial purposes but that the organisations we expressly authorise, warrant and control have access to every piece of data they need to keep us safe, without any additional bureaurocratic overhead other than recording every use of that data and a justification for why it is being used.

Why is this idea important?

The headlines about Russian spies recently shows that enemies of this country and our freedoms exist and can (and are?) be among us now.  That these "sleepers" were embedded decades ago emphasises the great need for us to be thorough in keeping and maintaining the records needed to enable us to track these people down.  The same is true for the non-government enemies; the terrorists and single issue extremists.

However, we as citizens need to be comfortable that our Government is not abusing this information to further its own ends; it is disgraceful that Local Government is abusing legislation regulating the Intelligence Services for such trivialities as dog fouling and car parking offences.  This is unacceptable and demeans both the Public and the Intelligence agencies protecting us – it must be stopped immediately.

My proposals are: 

1)that local government is immediately forbidden from using HRA/RIPA/ISA legislation

2) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies  are able to keep any quantity of data collected legally for unlimited periods

3) that Intelligence and suitable law enforcement agencies can only use this data when expressly authorised to do so in an auditable way and ensuring that the data they have is accurate and used in a proportionate fashion.

The intention is to remove the feeling that we the Public are being spied on for trivial purposes but that the organisations we expressly authorise, warrant and control have access to every piece of data they need to keep us safe, without any additional bureaurocratic overhead other than recording every use of that data and a justification for why it is being used.

Body Scanners Decrease Security, Because They Are Fooled By Leather. Policy Needs Changing Immediately.

Gordons' browns decision to make nude body scanners compulsory, rather than offering the option for a pat-down was excessively draconian. Furthermore government should realise that they do not work because the rays are reflected by skin including leather. 

Why is this idea important?

Gordons' browns decision to make nude body scanners compulsory, rather than offering the option for a pat-down was excessively draconian. Furthermore government should realise that they do not work because the rays are reflected by skin including leather. 

Repeal s57 of the Finance Act 2010 which allows opening of postal mail without a warrant

A powerful change to the law was made in the rush to pass the Finance Bill at the fag-end of the last parliament.  Section 57 of the Finance Act 2010 amends the Postal Services Act 2000 to allow post to be opened without a warrant and without the presence of the recipient.

To hide such a wide-ranging change to the law in the budget and to rush through parliament during the wash-up I see is itself an affront to our parliamentary democracy.

Furthermore such intrusive surveillance powers should, if a law is absolutely necessary, be limited by the same approval process for telephone surveillance and interception of other communications such as email.
 

Why is this idea important?

A powerful change to the law was made in the rush to pass the Finance Bill at the fag-end of the last parliament.  Section 57 of the Finance Act 2010 amends the Postal Services Act 2000 to allow post to be opened without a warrant and without the presence of the recipient.

To hide such a wide-ranging change to the law in the budget and to rush through parliament during the wash-up I see is itself an affront to our parliamentary democracy.

Furthermore such intrusive surveillance powers should, if a law is absolutely necessary, be limited by the same approval process for telephone surveillance and interception of other communications such as email.
 

Harassment of railway enthusiasts

End the routine harassment of railway enthusiasts, especially those taking photographs, onsecurity grounds and to replace the presumption of guilt implicit in the Association of Train Operating Companies/Network Rail/British Transport Police  guidance with an instruction to staff not to challenge individuals whose activities clearly constitute neither a threat to security nor the safe functioning of railway premises.

Why is this idea important?

End the routine harassment of railway enthusiasts, especially those taking photographs, onsecurity grounds and to replace the presumption of guilt implicit in the Association of Train Operating Companies/Network Rail/British Transport Police  guidance with an instruction to staff not to challenge individuals whose activities clearly constitute neither a threat to security nor the safe functioning of railway premises.

Freedom of movement

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

Why is this idea important?

We should be allowed to go across borders without being subjected to immigration control within the EU. Many countries in Europe have signed up to this and can move around freely. I believe we should have the same rights, as we already pay for membership, so we should get this benefit. It is especially needed for those people who spend their time traveling back and forth.

narrow the ambit of section 44 of the Terrorism Act

section 44 is aimed at the prevention of terorism and must not give administrative authorities, such as local councils,, the power to snoop. Remember the gentlemen ejected from the Labour Party conference a few years back and photographers prevented from phototgraphing public buildings

Why is this idea important?

section 44 is aimed at the prevention of terorism and must not give administrative authorities, such as local councils,, the power to snoop. Remember the gentlemen ejected from the Labour Party conference a few years back and photographers prevented from phototgraphing public buildings

airport sercruity

hello nick, great ideas from your govenment, at most airports you have over the top sercruity, your have

to many people, checking on nothing much at all,picking up on not much, and holding up ques of people

over nothing much at all.so bring back customer service at airports more staff in right places, and not too

many in sercruity, when you have scan machines checking on the bags, and people looking at sugar jars,

or dryed skimmed milk jars, or any other nothing to do jobs just for the sack of it. so please lets see fairness return and not over the top sillyness. bring back the good old days of equality, and not suspecting every body of nothing at all. lets see customer service return, were people get treated property and not like hearded animals, who do not know were to go, when we do but have to follow

the sercruity way of doing things. one way systems at airports do not always work well, for pasengers and staff, because we are all treated the same. you cannot return to were you came from , so things are wrong and need to be changed. thank you for this chance to have my say,

best regards,

nigel aldridge

Why is this idea important?

hello nick, great ideas from your govenment, at most airports you have over the top sercruity, your have

to many people, checking on nothing much at all,picking up on not much, and holding up ques of people

over nothing much at all.so bring back customer service at airports more staff in right places, and not too

many in sercruity, when you have scan machines checking on the bags, and people looking at sugar jars,

or dryed skimmed milk jars, or any other nothing to do jobs just for the sack of it. so please lets see fairness return and not over the top sillyness. bring back the good old days of equality, and not suspecting every body of nothing at all. lets see customer service return, were people get treated property and not like hearded animals, who do not know were to go, when we do but have to follow

the sercruity way of doing things. one way systems at airports do not always work well, for pasengers and staff, because we are all treated the same. you cannot return to were you came from , so things are wrong and need to be changed. thank you for this chance to have my say,

best regards,

nigel aldridge

Roll back excessive airport security

Roll back excessive security searching at British airports.  Ordinary passengers are being routinely harassed and humiliated for no good reason.  Any search short of a full body search is by definition ineffective, so we should just accept that there will always be a degree of risk, and go back to metal detectors only for most travellers.  A full body search should only be authorised if there are genuine grounds for suspicion, and there should be a right of appeal and compensation for wrongful searching.  Searchers should wear visible identification.  Most passengers should be able to pass through security unmolested, and this would not make us any less safe.  Don't forget security searches didn't stop 9/11, nor did they prevent the shoe bomber, sort drinks bombers or underpants bomber.  After each of these incidents the stable door was rebolted even tighter, so the terrorists found another way.  The answer is better intelligence, not more searches. 

Why is this idea important?

Roll back excessive security searching at British airports.  Ordinary passengers are being routinely harassed and humiliated for no good reason.  Any search short of a full body search is by definition ineffective, so we should just accept that there will always be a degree of risk, and go back to metal detectors only for most travellers.  A full body search should only be authorised if there are genuine grounds for suspicion, and there should be a right of appeal and compensation for wrongful searching.  Searchers should wear visible identification.  Most passengers should be able to pass through security unmolested, and this would not make us any less safe.  Don't forget security searches didn't stop 9/11, nor did they prevent the shoe bomber, sort drinks bombers or underpants bomber.  After each of these incidents the stable door was rebolted even tighter, so the terrorists found another way.  The answer is better intelligence, not more searches. 

scrap the SIA

 a   home office  quango  that is inept in its   duties  & is a  cost burden  on  self employed  law  abiding  citizens in all  parts of the  Licenced  trade that is  in some ways  feeling the  pinch  more than most

Why is this idea important?

 a   home office  quango  that is inept in its   duties  & is a  cost burden  on  self employed  law  abiding  citizens in all  parts of the  Licenced  trade that is  in some ways  feeling the  pinch  more than most

Allow Access to the 1921 Census Now

In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is one such project.

A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.

The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.

A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum

There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children. – so there is no need to redact columns.

In addition releasing the census would purge misconceptions raised by a previous Registrar General, Len Cook when he pledge on the 1981, 1991 census that the schedules would remain closed for 100 years. A pledge he later admitted in a letter to parliament he had no authority to give.

This would not cost goverment or taxpayers one penny as private companies would be queuing up to digitise, transcribe and host the 1921 Census

Why is this idea important?

In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is one such project.

A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.

The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5 million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and useful figure for even a government to play with.

A group of MPs suggested the 1911 census could develop revenue of 40 million pounds per annum

There were no sensitive questions on the schedule-
Name & Surname, Relationship to Head, Age, Sex, Married or Orphaned, Birthplace, Nationality, School, Occupation, Employment, Place of work, Total Children Under 15, Ages of Children. – so there is no need to redact columns.

In addition releasing the census would purge misconceptions raised by a previous Registrar General, Len Cook when he pledge on the 1981, 1991 census that the schedules would remain closed for 100 years. A pledge he later admitted in a letter to parliament he had no authority to give.

This would not cost goverment or taxpayers one penny as private companies would be queuing up to digitise, transcribe and host the 1921 Census

full face cover

many women wear a full face cover because of their religion. I feel strongly that this is no longer appropriate in our country, motorcyclist have to remove helmets before entering a bank or public place, if all we can see is a pair of eyes how can we identify if that person is friend or foe male or female, by all means cover your head but not your face !!!

Why is this idea important?

many women wear a full face cover because of their religion. I feel strongly that this is no longer appropriate in our country, motorcyclist have to remove helmets before entering a bank or public place, if all we can see is a pair of eyes how can we identify if that person is friend or foe male or female, by all means cover your head but not your face !!!