Ensure that someone who kills gets life and not 3 years! Manslaughter or not!

I, like most law abising citizens find it appalling that two people could hit a man in his 70s to the ground who later died got a few years. It wasn't the first man they had hit. It was murder, it is highly likely that a man in his 70s would fall if hit. Even manslaughter or GBH should get more than a few years. At the same time a man who conned someone out of a million pounds "selling" the Ritz got 5 years. Who is the greater danger to the public really? Is there a contest? No. The law as they say is an ass. Increase the minimum sentence for these crimes.

Why is this idea important?

I, like most law abising citizens find it appalling that two people could hit a man in his 70s to the ground who later died got a few years. It wasn't the first man they had hit. It was murder, it is highly likely that a man in his 70s would fall if hit. Even manslaughter or GBH should get more than a few years. At the same time a man who conned someone out of a million pounds "selling" the Ritz got 5 years. Who is the greater danger to the public really? Is there a contest? No. The law as they say is an ass. Increase the minimum sentence for these crimes.

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Transparancy in tax and benefits

I suggest that taxes paid and benefits received both be a matter of public record.  This will make avoidance and missclaiming more difficult.  There is no reason why this should be a secret – for companies there may be an argument for keeping secrecy but I feel that the secrecy over individuals transactions with government leads to suspicion and criminality.

Along with this I would like the paying of taxes a matter of pride and honour.  The honours system should actively discriminate against those who avoid paying taxes and should actively honour those who make significant contributions.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest that taxes paid and benefits received both be a matter of public record.  This will make avoidance and missclaiming more difficult.  There is no reason why this should be a secret – for companies there may be an argument for keeping secrecy but I feel that the secrecy over individuals transactions with government leads to suspicion and criminality.

Along with this I would like the paying of taxes a matter of pride and honour.  The honours system should actively discriminate against those who avoid paying taxes and should actively honour those who make significant contributions.

Remove the anti social behaviour act from control by social housing landlords

This Act brought into being by Jack Straw has been so often utilized by powerful and completely unaccountable social housing organisations against tenants towards whom they might bear a grudge or dislike, possibly for being outspoken against unjust treatment from the landlords, that it has become a weapon in their hands and, without regard for any crime having been committed by the tenant whatsoever they will mercilessly threaten the tenant and try to control them in every possible way with this bizarre Act..

Social Housing organisations are a law unto themselves with no respect for law and increasingly behave like the Nanny State extremis in every thing they say and do, interfering in every private domain of a tenant's life!! Putting an Asbo on a peace loving tenant with no addictions and no criminal record doesn't concern such tyrannical minds as those that exist within these particular housing organisations. Take the power out of their hands and please eliminate the much abused anti social behaviour Act!

Why is this idea important?

This Act brought into being by Jack Straw has been so often utilized by powerful and completely unaccountable social housing organisations against tenants towards whom they might bear a grudge or dislike, possibly for being outspoken against unjust treatment from the landlords, that it has become a weapon in their hands and, without regard for any crime having been committed by the tenant whatsoever they will mercilessly threaten the tenant and try to control them in every possible way with this bizarre Act..

Social Housing organisations are a law unto themselves with no respect for law and increasingly behave like the Nanny State extremis in every thing they say and do, interfering in every private domain of a tenant's life!! Putting an Asbo on a peace loving tenant with no addictions and no criminal record doesn't concern such tyrannical minds as those that exist within these particular housing organisations. Take the power out of their hands and please eliminate the much abused anti social behaviour Act!

Introduce Land Value Taxation–Stop Landlords Living Off Our Tax Payments

Since the times when the Enclosure Acts became law (over a period from about 1650 till 1870), the British community has become divided into two basic classes. Those with land and the right to speculate in its value without putting it to use and those who need to be employed on somebody elses land as dependents on their management for a living. These laws took the "commons" land and stopped the small-scale farmer from being able to earn a living using the land that was previously free. Huge tracts were taken, in some cases whole villages abolished. Workers had to settle in squalid town conditions and work in factories under conditions not fit for slaves (after all you have to care for a slave or you get nowt from him, but a worker can always be replaced).

"They hung the man and flogged the woman

Who stole the goose from off the common. 

But took no heed of what was worse

And stole the land from under the goose."

Land is one of the three basic factors of production (the others being labour and durable capital goods such as buildings and tools). Without any right to occupy a site of land, nothing gets produced and these rights cost a lot too much money. This is because monopolistic land owners can and do hold land out of use for purposes of speculation in its value. This means that the competition for its use raises the ground-rent and/or the purchase price of land. The high rents are passed on as high manufacturing costs and consequently the demand for goods is comparatively low along with the numbers employed.

Thus our system of permissive land holding from the time that Land Lords were created, has driven a wedge between those in charge of opportunity and those needing to make the most of it (the commoners). Land speculation was the basic cause of the present economic crisis, and today as housing prices are still greatly inflated, the lack of employment opportunities is continuing to reduce more and more middle class people into a state of poverty, squalor, crime, drugs trading and homelessness.

The solution, apart from allowing our land to become a commons once again, is to collect from the land owners the advantage that their land is taking away from others. Not only do they benefit from high unearned ground-rents, but these rents continue to rise as our tax money payments are invested in the roads, sewers, emergency and municipal services and infra-structure near where we live, making the sites even more valuable, encouraging the corruption of town planners to disclose where the next development is to take place and providing the way for unscrupulous lawyers to benefit from the land sales with money passing under the table (pre-contracted) so as to reduce stamp duty etc.

The solution to this problem of growing poverty was first proposed by Henry George, an American economist, whose seminal book "Progress and Poverty" of 1879, broke sales records and more than 3 million were taken up. His single-tax proposal was resisted by the Land Lords in both the U.S. in 1898 and here in 1909 by the Lloyd George  government. Obviously the minority of land holders would oppose such a bill, even though the greed and pride of from this small group was harming our society and splitting its apart.

It is time that the effects of the Enclosure Acts were stopped and that the ground-rent was collected as a tax instead of the present taxes on production. Details and features of LVT are given below.

Why is this idea important?

Since the times when the Enclosure Acts became law (over a period from about 1650 till 1870), the British community has become divided into two basic classes. Those with land and the right to speculate in its value without putting it to use and those who need to be employed on somebody elses land as dependents on their management for a living. These laws took the "commons" land and stopped the small-scale farmer from being able to earn a living using the land that was previously free. Huge tracts were taken, in some cases whole villages abolished. Workers had to settle in squalid town conditions and work in factories under conditions not fit for slaves (after all you have to care for a slave or you get nowt from him, but a worker can always be replaced).

"They hung the man and flogged the woman

Who stole the goose from off the common. 

But took no heed of what was worse

And stole the land from under the goose."

Land is one of the three basic factors of production (the others being labour and durable capital goods such as buildings and tools). Without any right to occupy a site of land, nothing gets produced and these rights cost a lot too much money. This is because monopolistic land owners can and do hold land out of use for purposes of speculation in its value. This means that the competition for its use raises the ground-rent and/or the purchase price of land. The high rents are passed on as high manufacturing costs and consequently the demand for goods is comparatively low along with the numbers employed.

Thus our system of permissive land holding from the time that Land Lords were created, has driven a wedge between those in charge of opportunity and those needing to make the most of it (the commoners). Land speculation was the basic cause of the present economic crisis, and today as housing prices are still greatly inflated, the lack of employment opportunities is continuing to reduce more and more middle class people into a state of poverty, squalor, crime, drugs trading and homelessness.

The solution, apart from allowing our land to become a commons once again, is to collect from the land owners the advantage that their land is taking away from others. Not only do they benefit from high unearned ground-rents, but these rents continue to rise as our tax money payments are invested in the roads, sewers, emergency and municipal services and infra-structure near where we live, making the sites even more valuable, encouraging the corruption of town planners to disclose where the next development is to take place and providing the way for unscrupulous lawyers to benefit from the land sales with money passing under the table (pre-contracted) so as to reduce stamp duty etc.

The solution to this problem of growing poverty was first proposed by Henry George, an American economist, whose seminal book "Progress and Poverty" of 1879, broke sales records and more than 3 million were taken up. His single-tax proposal was resisted by the Land Lords in both the U.S. in 1898 and here in 1909 by the Lloyd George  government. Obviously the minority of land holders would oppose such a bill, even though the greed and pride of from this small group was harming our society and splitting its apart.

It is time that the effects of the Enclosure Acts were stopped and that the ground-rent was collected as a tax instead of the present taxes on production. Details and features of LVT are given below.

make it easier for companies to give away food

my idea is to change the regulations that require food shops to secure their waste bins so that people cannot  search through them for perfectly edible yet expired food. or if the issue is the danger of people getting into large bins then there should be some provision of a place where people can safely access this source of food.

Why is this idea important?

my idea is to change the regulations that require food shops to secure their waste bins so that people cannot  search through them for perfectly edible yet expired food. or if the issue is the danger of people getting into large bins then there should be some provision of a place where people can safely access this source of food.

Replace DWP Social Fund loans with grants

The Social Fund is a small but vitally important part of the much-needed social security system.  It is means-tested and consists of many different types of payments to assist the very poorest in society in their time of dire need.  Unfortunately, the majority of those payments take the form of loans and MUST be repaid by the recipient even if they remain in receipt of State benefit.  These repayments reduce the already paltry amount of cash available and no relief is given in Winter months when fuel bills are punishingly high.

 

I propose we scrap loans to poor people completely and establish a system of grants.  What's good enough for our numerous millionairre Members of Parliament who get similar grants for similar items also paid for from the public purse, should be good enough for our poverty-stricken too.

 

Further information on the Department for Work & Pension's Social Fund Crisis and Budgeting Loans is available from the DWP in the 195-page pdf dated April 2010 at Parts 3 and 4 respectively

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-guide.pdf

Why is this idea important?

The Social Fund is a small but vitally important part of the much-needed social security system.  It is means-tested and consists of many different types of payments to assist the very poorest in society in their time of dire need.  Unfortunately, the majority of those payments take the form of loans and MUST be repaid by the recipient even if they remain in receipt of State benefit.  These repayments reduce the already paltry amount of cash available and no relief is given in Winter months when fuel bills are punishingly high.

 

I propose we scrap loans to poor people completely and establish a system of grants.  What's good enough for our numerous millionairre Members of Parliament who get similar grants for similar items also paid for from the public purse, should be good enough for our poverty-stricken too.

 

Further information on the Department for Work & Pension's Social Fund Crisis and Budgeting Loans is available from the DWP in the 195-page pdf dated April 2010 at Parts 3 and 4 respectively

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-guide.pdf

Repeal the 2003 Sexual Offenses Act on keeping brothels

The 2003 Sexual Offenses Act makes it  "an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution "

This part of the act should be repealed and replaced with new laws regulating the operation of brothels.

Why is this idea important?

The 2003 Sexual Offenses Act makes it  "an offence for a person to keep, or to manage, or act or assist in the management of, a brothel to which people resort for practices involving prostitution "

This part of the act should be repealed and replaced with new laws regulating the operation of brothels.