Pub licensees should not need to have a door badge to stop people coming into their own pub

Landlords should not have to spend hundreds of pounds to get a door license to allow them to uphold the licensing objectives imposed on them.
In order to hold an alcohol license, you need a CRB check and to take exams to ensure that you understand your responsibilities.
If I wanted to stand on my own door and stop drunkards entering, I now need to have a door badge, however I can still be prosecuted if I fail to stop them coming in.

Why is this idea important?

Landlords should not have to spend hundreds of pounds to get a door license to allow them to uphold the licensing objectives imposed on them.
In order to hold an alcohol license, you need a CRB check and to take exams to ensure that you understand your responsibilities.
If I wanted to stand on my own door and stop drunkards entering, I now need to have a door badge, however I can still be prosecuted if I fail to stop them coming in.

Why don’t I feel safe?

Almost every day I hear of somebody being robbed in the street. It used to be in the early hours or somewhere off the beaten track. But now it's anywhere at any time. We are advised to stay away from dangerous areas but these areas are getting larger by the day. I'm only an ex Royal Marine pensioner so I don't have the answer, but a government who spend billions can surely think of a way to protect its own citizens from an ever growing army of state funded thugs,

Why is this idea important?

Almost every day I hear of somebody being robbed in the street. It used to be in the early hours or somewhere off the beaten track. But now it's anywhere at any time. We are advised to stay away from dangerous areas but these areas are getting larger by the day. I'm only an ex Royal Marine pensioner so I don't have the answer, but a government who spend billions can surely think of a way to protect its own citizens from an ever growing army of state funded thugs,

Review requirements for ‘Protective Marking’ with more common sense approach

Review requirement for all government agencies to introduce protective marking at all levels , as set out in HMG Security Policy Framework, May 2010 (see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207318/hmg_security_policy.pdf)  and replace with a more common sense approach which reduces the amount of bureaucracy and the number of mandatory requirements.

Why is this idea important?

Review requirement for all government agencies to introduce protective marking at all levels , as set out in HMG Security Policy Framework, May 2010 (see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207318/hmg_security_policy.pdf)  and replace with a more common sense approach which reduces the amount of bureaucracy and the number of mandatory requirements.

Stop recording our emails and phone calls

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Why is this idea important?

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Recording emails, website visits and text

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Why is this idea important?

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Get rid of the SIA or at least change it

 the SIA was a good idea to licence  doormen & keep the public safe  however it is  run by idiots   who lose   more  details  than they collect. &  the  fees are way too high 249 GBP   i  have to pay in a few months time (again!!!) just for the  right to work that is just unfair as a self employed  person. I am  all for the licence  system but under old  local  council systems  this  was  free &  was  stress free the SIA  have  messed up  more than the old system ever did (did not  a load of illegal 's  end up  working @ the  heart of  goverment ?). &  dont get me started on the  exam where  English as a second language is  a' get  a head start" & the SIA web site  state the costs & training  is to increase as of this month

i as a  born &  bred UK citizen have the right to work but i  should not have to pay for this right every  3 years  to keep some  pencil pusher in work  when i put my life at risk on a daily basis ensuring  the public  are safe.

 

Why is this idea important?

 the SIA was a good idea to licence  doormen & keep the public safe  however it is  run by idiots   who lose   more  details  than they collect. &  the  fees are way too high 249 GBP   i  have to pay in a few months time (again!!!) just for the  right to work that is just unfair as a self employed  person. I am  all for the licence  system but under old  local  council systems  this  was  free &  was  stress free the SIA  have  messed up  more than the old system ever did (did not  a load of illegal 's  end up  working @ the  heart of  goverment ?). &  dont get me started on the  exam where  English as a second language is  a' get  a head start" & the SIA web site  state the costs & training  is to increase as of this month

i as a  born &  bred UK citizen have the right to work but i  should not have to pay for this right every  3 years  to keep some  pencil pusher in work  when i put my life at risk on a daily basis ensuring  the public  are safe.

 

Encryption laws

Annex I Section 5 Part 2 ("Information Security") of the UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items) should be removed, as in today's connected digital world, encryption should not be classed as "Dual-Use".

Why is this idea important?

Annex I Section 5 Part 2 ("Information Security") of the UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items) should be removed, as in today's connected digital world, encryption should not be classed as "Dual-Use".

Loosening of the regulations governing hand baggage at UK Airports

That these reactionary and ineffective security measures be repealed making flying for millions of travellers much less stressful and simpler.

In particular:

The regulation restricting the amount of liquid you can carry in your hand baggage to 100ml;

The need to place all liquid items in a transparent bag to be produced for inspection by customs officials.

Why is this idea important?

That these reactionary and ineffective security measures be repealed making flying for millions of travellers much less stressful and simpler.

In particular:

The regulation restricting the amount of liquid you can carry in your hand baggage to 100ml;

The need to place all liquid items in a transparent bag to be produced for inspection by customs officials.

Mandatory disclosure of loss of data / security incidents

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

Naked Body Scanners At Airports

I would like all Naked Airport body scanners to be changed so that the naked image of a person is not viewed by any airport worker. Britain is the only country in the world were you must comply with a digital strip search. If you refuse you will loose your holiday and all the money you spent on it. You will also be barred from flying for life so the pressure is on the person to get completely naked in front of strangers. Most people think the scan is like an x-ray. If the public only knew it was a detailed naked image and that  any part of the body can be zoomed in on and viewed in great detail they would be horrified and refuse to fly.

They must all be changed to a human stick figure image which highlights an area of interest ie: objects that haven’t been removed and placed on a tray for the security guard to view.

As we all know if you are going through a metal detector you would take out all of your belongings and place them on the tray for the guard to view. If some one is trying to smuggle something through they would keep it on their person. If it isn’t metal like plastic explosives then a metal detector wouldn’t detect this but a scanner would easily show a body of mass that needs further investigation. These machines are a valuable tool in catching a would be terrorist or drug runner but why should the public be forced to expose themselves nude for anyone to see at an airport when the technology is available to protect the decency and privacy of people who really want to fly but feel that a person of the opposite sex seeing them naked is more than they are willing to sacrifice.

Manchester airport is trialling this technology at the moment for the public’s privacy. If this isn’t rolled out across the board then it is a gross invasion of privacy of every individual that fly’s.

Why is this idea important?

I would like all Naked Airport body scanners to be changed so that the naked image of a person is not viewed by any airport worker. Britain is the only country in the world were you must comply with a digital strip search. If you refuse you will loose your holiday and all the money you spent on it. You will also be barred from flying for life so the pressure is on the person to get completely naked in front of strangers. Most people think the scan is like an x-ray. If the public only knew it was a detailed naked image and that  any part of the body can be zoomed in on and viewed in great detail they would be horrified and refuse to fly.

They must all be changed to a human stick figure image which highlights an area of interest ie: objects that haven’t been removed and placed on a tray for the security guard to view.

As we all know if you are going through a metal detector you would take out all of your belongings and place them on the tray for the guard to view. If some one is trying to smuggle something through they would keep it on their person. If it isn’t metal like plastic explosives then a metal detector wouldn’t detect this but a scanner would easily show a body of mass that needs further investigation. These machines are a valuable tool in catching a would be terrorist or drug runner but why should the public be forced to expose themselves nude for anyone to see at an airport when the technology is available to protect the decency and privacy of people who really want to fly but feel that a person of the opposite sex seeing them naked is more than they are willing to sacrifice.

Manchester airport is trialling this technology at the moment for the public’s privacy. If this isn’t rolled out across the board then it is a gross invasion of privacy of every individual that fly’s.

“Fit and Proper” register for bookeeping services

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?

Why is this idea important?

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?

Remove the ban on liquids over 100ml in hand luggage

A ban on liquids over 100ml in hand luggage was implemented as an anti-terror measure in 2006. Technology now exists which is able to scan liquids to determine their contents, this technology is effective and is only being delayed by EU bureaucracy which is holding up the final tests. Given that this is the case the ban should no longer be necessary.

Why is this idea important?

A ban on liquids over 100ml in hand luggage was implemented as an anti-terror measure in 2006. Technology now exists which is able to scan liquids to determine their contents, this technology is effective and is only being delayed by EU bureaucracy which is holding up the final tests. Given that this is the case the ban should no longer be necessary.