Financial Education

Financial Services should be a compulsory subject until the age of 16 in every school in the UK.

The subject should cover:

UK Regulatory structure and your rights as a consumer

Distribution channels (bancassurers, IFAs, Direct sales etc) and the advice process including the key sales documents.

Concept of risk

Types of financial products, Savings, Investments, Bonds, pensions, Mortgages

Basic Tax planning

State benefits

Projections, charges, fees and costs.

 

Why is this idea important?

Financial Services should be a compulsory subject until the age of 16 in every school in the UK.

The subject should cover:

UK Regulatory structure and your rights as a consumer

Distribution channels (bancassurers, IFAs, Direct sales etc) and the advice process including the key sales documents.

Concept of risk

Types of financial products, Savings, Investments, Bonds, pensions, Mortgages

Basic Tax planning

State benefits

Projections, charges, fees and costs.

 

Legal requirement to apply common sense on Court Proceedings

Before any case is heard in any court there should be a legal requirement for "Common Sense" to be considered.

For example, if a burglar falls through a roof, before s/he can claim compensation the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied, ie if they hadn't been on the roof they wouldn't have fallen through,  so the case is instantly dismissed.

If a driver is charged with speeding on a motorway at 82 miles an hour when no one else is around in great weather and visibility, then  the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied and as they were not endangering anyone else the case is dismissed.

Particularly applies to:

Human Rights

Health and Safety

Compensation claims

Why is this idea important?

Before any case is heard in any court there should be a legal requirement for "Common Sense" to be considered.

For example, if a burglar falls through a roof, before s/he can claim compensation the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied, ie if they hadn't been on the roof they wouldn't have fallen through,  so the case is instantly dismissed.

If a driver is charged with speeding on a motorway at 82 miles an hour when no one else is around in great weather and visibility, then  the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied and as they were not endangering anyone else the case is dismissed.

Particularly applies to:

Human Rights

Health and Safety

Compensation claims

Expand the Freedom of Information Act to include all social housing organisations

My housing organisation in the Richmond borough are building a truly MASSIVE new building for their offices while they already have office buildings in practically every town in the borough.Now I know they in receipt of public funding and accordingly I wrote to the housing manager to ask him under the Foe Act how much the building costs and where the money to build such an enormous construction in width, breadth and height came from. He curtly replied that he didn't have to give me such information. Please change the law so that all housing organisations in regular receipt of public funds (It must be costing millions!)discloses the financial details for there is another housing organisation which DOES disclose these figures in this borough. This is a waste of public money based on the pure greed of such landlords who, at the same time, are miserly and mean towards their tenants, refusing to spend a penny on many essential repairs, etcetera.

Why is this idea important?

My housing organisation in the Richmond borough are building a truly MASSIVE new building for their offices while they already have office buildings in practically every town in the borough.Now I know they in receipt of public funding and accordingly I wrote to the housing manager to ask him under the Foe Act how much the building costs and where the money to build such an enormous construction in width, breadth and height came from. He curtly replied that he didn't have to give me such information. Please change the law so that all housing organisations in regular receipt of public funds (It must be costing millions!)discloses the financial details for there is another housing organisation which DOES disclose these figures in this borough. This is a waste of public money based on the pure greed of such landlords who, at the same time, are miserly and mean towards their tenants, refusing to spend a penny on many essential repairs, etcetera.

Abolish the 30 Year Rule

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Why is this idea important?

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Lets have Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg stand up to the U.S and disassociate the U.K with their policing of the world.

Over  the years since the Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there has been much talk of this 'special relationship' between the U.S.A and the U.K, which has essentially meant that whenever America wants something they can just turn to their little whipping boy, the U.K., for support.  Whether it has been over the BP spill (for which I feel America should be solely blamed, it is not Tony Hayward's fault, it was the fault of a negligent safety inspector who is no doubt American) or taking us into conflicts we have no reason to be involved in.

This is a country that has caused numerous instances of unrest across the world in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus just to name a few, and each time we are there tarnishing our name, too. In America's 'war on terror' we were there behind them, weakly smiling and ready to jump: this is a particularly sore point as the IRA had been funded by the U.S, and the so called 'war on terror' led to the loss of innocent lives on July 7th in London. Where was the U.S to back us up when the terrorism of the IRA was directed at us?

Why is this idea important?

Over  the years since the Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there has been much talk of this 'special relationship' between the U.S.A and the U.K, which has essentially meant that whenever America wants something they can just turn to their little whipping boy, the U.K., for support.  Whether it has been over the BP spill (for which I feel America should be solely blamed, it is not Tony Hayward's fault, it was the fault of a negligent safety inspector who is no doubt American) or taking us into conflicts we have no reason to be involved in.

This is a country that has caused numerous instances of unrest across the world in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus just to name a few, and each time we are there tarnishing our name, too. In America's 'war on terror' we were there behind them, weakly smiling and ready to jump: this is a particularly sore point as the IRA had been funded by the U.S, and the so called 'war on terror' led to the loss of innocent lives on July 7th in London. Where was the U.S to back us up when the terrorism of the IRA was directed at us?

Make Traffic Laws Apply to Cyclists.

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Why is this idea important?

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Ban Guns and knifes!!!!!!!

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Why is this idea important?

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.