Enlarge the small print that no-one can read

 

Make it illegal for manufacturers to list their ingredients and instructions in ultra small print that even people with optimum vision cannot read.

Print on packaging has become smaller and smaller over the years so that now it is quite often little more than an unintelligible fuzz.

For people who have to avoid certain ingredients and additives due to personal choice, dietary requirements etc it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the important information they need when the print is far too small.

I feel that is every citizen's right to know what they are purchasing, and think this is an issue of civil liberty because we all need to have the freedom of choice to find out what is in the item we are buying and we need to know how to safely follow the instructions on a product and be able to see those instructions clearly, but it is often impossible to even see the relevant information one needs. 

Please introduce a minimum standard size on how small the small print can be. 

Why is this idea important?

 

Make it illegal for manufacturers to list their ingredients and instructions in ultra small print that even people with optimum vision cannot read.

Print on packaging has become smaller and smaller over the years so that now it is quite often little more than an unintelligible fuzz.

For people who have to avoid certain ingredients and additives due to personal choice, dietary requirements etc it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the important information they need when the print is far too small.

I feel that is every citizen's right to know what they are purchasing, and think this is an issue of civil liberty because we all need to have the freedom of choice to find out what is in the item we are buying and we need to know how to safely follow the instructions on a product and be able to see those instructions clearly, but it is often impossible to even see the relevant information one needs. 

Please introduce a minimum standard size on how small the small print can be. 

Free us from this Brave New World

 

Make the Big Society the Number One objective of the Coalition Government

Can we have a restoration of individual responsibility, civic awareness and a government led programme to get society at large educated, aware and willing to engage as near to as possible en masse?

So lets get rid of thousands of CCTV cameras and all the other Big Brother measures people on this site are raising and try to return to the 1950 and 1960s, if not in terms of wealth in terms of values. It is up to us but the Government can make a huge difference and must.

Excuse me if this seems pedantic and rambling. It is not but the point I wish to make needs to be preached to the unconverted, many of whom will have been born into our mindless broken society, As a result, they may take it as normal and satisfactory and anything but broken. I need to explain why they are wrong.

The credit crunch showed the world that the idea of world trade creating wealth is simplistic and dangerous. They forgot to add that it also created world vulnerabilities when things go wrong. They also forgot to mention that the markets are not self-regulating and that, even where we have them, regulators are not infallible or incorruptible, and so we also need to regulate the regulators. As you may know, Fred the Shred was about to become one of them. Is that alone not enough to make the point?

It is nice to be miserable in comfort but money is not everything. Having purpose in life and sufficient education to see the need and benefits ought to be regarded as a human right. Added to that, that education needs to explain that putting others concerns high on one’s own agenda is of benefit to them but also to oneself.

A lot follows from this and properly educated people will realise that you cannot achieve happiness directly, only as a by-product of other activities and with some concern for others. There is nothing new in this, Aristotle argued it thoroughly and convincingly about 2000 years ago. Rousseau and many others argued that a sense of civic duty was a moral imperative.

What is not new in the misinformation age is that the fundamentals have not changed much in 2000 years either, except that we have science and technology to raise our thresholds of the minimum acceptable requirements for a satisfactory standard of living. This has occurred to such a level that mindless acquisition of the material is the prerequisite, not the learning and insights into how to appreciate and enjoy the simple pleasures.

For lack of an understanding of this, most of us willingly join the ever widening spiral to the English equivalent of the American Dream only to find that progress means more money, more stress, and more unhappiness. You expect your employer to tear you to shreds when it comes time for your performance review because it suits him to accentuate the negative then. You expect frequent if not universal lies and cheating from companies you deal with as a consumer. You expect advertisements to hide the truth and drive you mad on TV with all their mindless stupidity and false claims because all they are interested in is a fast buck. And so it goes on whichever way you turn.

Things are getting worse not better but if you were born not that long ago you will know little or nothing of what it was like in Britain before. We did not have immigration at such a high level that in Birmingham English is set to become a minority language. We had much less in all regards but we appreciated what we had and enjoyed it with a sense of calm, well-being and dignity.

We even had hobbies and engaged in creative activities rather than relying upon our X-box or TV to while away our leisure hours. All has seriously declined. Now being dishonest is not a major concern to many, only being caught out and then finding suitably remorseful words to feign a real apology. Murder someone over a discarded chocolate rapper and get a few years. Embezzle £billions and the sentence probably is heavier.

No this is not the rant of a religious fundamentalist, it is the rant of an atheist who values spiritual values and who thinks this planet is heading for premature destruction well before the sun burns up in about 3.5 billion years, at least where the inhuman species is concerned.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Make the Big Society the Number One objective of the Coalition Government

Can we have a restoration of individual responsibility, civic awareness and a government led programme to get society at large educated, aware and willing to engage as near to as possible en masse?

So lets get rid of thousands of CCTV cameras and all the other Big Brother measures people on this site are raising and try to return to the 1950 and 1960s, if not in terms of wealth in terms of values. It is up to us but the Government can make a huge difference and must.

Excuse me if this seems pedantic and rambling. It is not but the point I wish to make needs to be preached to the unconverted, many of whom will have been born into our mindless broken society, As a result, they may take it as normal and satisfactory and anything but broken. I need to explain why they are wrong.

The credit crunch showed the world that the idea of world trade creating wealth is simplistic and dangerous. They forgot to add that it also created world vulnerabilities when things go wrong. They also forgot to mention that the markets are not self-regulating and that, even where we have them, regulators are not infallible or incorruptible, and so we also need to regulate the regulators. As you may know, Fred the Shred was about to become one of them. Is that alone not enough to make the point?

It is nice to be miserable in comfort but money is not everything. Having purpose in life and sufficient education to see the need and benefits ought to be regarded as a human right. Added to that, that education needs to explain that putting others concerns high on one’s own agenda is of benefit to them but also to oneself.

A lot follows from this and properly educated people will realise that you cannot achieve happiness directly, only as a by-product of other activities and with some concern for others. There is nothing new in this, Aristotle argued it thoroughly and convincingly about 2000 years ago. Rousseau and many others argued that a sense of civic duty was a moral imperative.

What is not new in the misinformation age is that the fundamentals have not changed much in 2000 years either, except that we have science and technology to raise our thresholds of the minimum acceptable requirements for a satisfactory standard of living. This has occurred to such a level that mindless acquisition of the material is the prerequisite, not the learning and insights into how to appreciate and enjoy the simple pleasures.

For lack of an understanding of this, most of us willingly join the ever widening spiral to the English equivalent of the American Dream only to find that progress means more money, more stress, and more unhappiness. You expect your employer to tear you to shreds when it comes time for your performance review because it suits him to accentuate the negative then. You expect frequent if not universal lies and cheating from companies you deal with as a consumer. You expect advertisements to hide the truth and drive you mad on TV with all their mindless stupidity and false claims because all they are interested in is a fast buck. And so it goes on whichever way you turn.

Things are getting worse not better but if you were born not that long ago you will know little or nothing of what it was like in Britain before. We did not have immigration at such a high level that in Birmingham English is set to become a minority language. We had much less in all regards but we appreciated what we had and enjoyed it with a sense of calm, well-being and dignity.

We even had hobbies and engaged in creative activities rather than relying upon our X-box or TV to while away our leisure hours. All has seriously declined. Now being dishonest is not a major concern to many, only being caught out and then finding suitably remorseful words to feign a real apology. Murder someone over a discarded chocolate rapper and get a few years. Embezzle £billions and the sentence probably is heavier.

No this is not the rant of a religious fundamentalist, it is the rant of an atheist who values spiritual values and who thinks this planet is heading for premature destruction well before the sun burns up in about 3.5 billion years, at least where the inhuman species is concerned.

 

 

Apply RIPA rules and restricitons to the Press

The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.

Why is this idea important?

The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.

Require all media organisations to fund an audited system of oversight for their profession

The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system.  The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.

Why is this idea important?

The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system.  The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.

Define “In the Public Interest” versus “Of interest to the Public”

It has been misused by the Press for decades – "in the public interest" has been deliberately used when "of interest to the public" (gossip) is for more accurate. Newspaper editors misuse this inappropriate and misleading blurring to justify press intrusion, and have so far evaded Privacy Laws by agreeing to (but breaking) their own so-called Codes of Conduct.

Reporting dangerous prisoners on the run, outbreaks of new diseases, notifying people about the recall of faulty products – that's in the public interest. Publishing topless photos of some holidaying Soap Opera star isn't, and neither is what goes on in people's private lives, unless they break the law. Lives and careers are ruined by voracious and uncaring reporters whose much-vaunted morals run as deep as a cigarette paper's thickness.

Give us a legal definition of  In The Public Interest and we will finally have legal recourse against Press Intrusion.

Why is this idea important?

It has been misused by the Press for decades – "in the public interest" has been deliberately used when "of interest to the public" (gossip) is for more accurate. Newspaper editors misuse this inappropriate and misleading blurring to justify press intrusion, and have so far evaded Privacy Laws by agreeing to (but breaking) their own so-called Codes of Conduct.

Reporting dangerous prisoners on the run, outbreaks of new diseases, notifying people about the recall of faulty products – that's in the public interest. Publishing topless photos of some holidaying Soap Opera star isn't, and neither is what goes on in people's private lives, unless they break the law. Lives and careers are ruined by voracious and uncaring reporters whose much-vaunted morals run as deep as a cigarette paper's thickness.

Give us a legal definition of  In The Public Interest and we will finally have legal recourse against Press Intrusion.

All Government Websites to work in all browsers

Any website operated by or for the government or other public body should be written to web standards so they can be viewed in any browser.

Example being this site – Voting only works in IE from what I can tell.

I'm not sure how it could be enforced … maybe a name and shame website.

There is bound to be some time where a feature is created that can only work on certain devices which is fair enough, but it should state clearly that this is the case.

Why is this idea important?

Any website operated by or for the government or other public body should be written to web standards so they can be viewed in any browser.

Example being this site – Voting only works in IE from what I can tell.

I'm not sure how it could be enforced … maybe a name and shame website.

There is bound to be some time where a feature is created that can only work on certain devices which is fair enough, but it should state clearly that this is the case.

To ALL EMPLOYERS please give more 30 hour jobs!

My idea is to get employers to give more 30 hour posts  so that we can at LEAST claim working tax credit,  because you have to be working 30 hours or more to be eligible, which I think is strange, surely it should be the other way around, the less hours more help?

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to get employers to give more 30 hour posts  so that we can at LEAST claim working tax credit,  because you have to be working 30 hours or more to be eligible, which I think is strange, surely it should be the other way around, the less hours more help?

Recruit Carefully For The Police.

Police recruitment has been from a very low level and to fullfill very limited expectations from officers and public alike. This must be improved as a matter of urgency. New standards must be set and driven forward to achieve a much more educated and civilised police force (not service).

Why is this idea important?

Police recruitment has been from a very low level and to fullfill very limited expectations from officers and public alike. This must be improved as a matter of urgency. New standards must be set and driven forward to achieve a much more educated and civilised police force (not service).

Let the Voluntary Sector Set its Own Standards

Voluntary organisations have to abide by a raft of standards to get any funding or recognition. Most of these are written by lawyers who have never set foot in a voluntary organisation or sub-statutory funders who want excuses to stop giving out money to make their lives easier. Consequently, although it is vital to have standards themselves, the ones in existence can be irrelevant, counterproductive or downright harmful, preventing organisations from providing valuable services for no good reason. They can lead to absurd situations like people who have come for a service being forced to fill in a questionnaire after receiving that service, thinking they are being spied on and refusing to come to the organisation again. It is also the case that the most determined criminals prosper under this system, as they know how to play the game and misrepresent things like misuse of funds and fraud because the rules of how to misbehave are laid out for them in the standards!

Though it is difficult to get agreed standards, a more responsive system which reflected genuine ability and capacity could be developed by INVOLVING VOLUNTARY SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES in various fields rather than expecting the voluntary setor to jump to standards INVENTED BY EVERYONE ELSE. This is the root of the problem – it is always assumed that everyone else is more capable than people in the voluntary sector, though the performance of other types of organisation (including government) does not support this theory.

 

Why is this idea important?

Voluntary organisations have to abide by a raft of standards to get any funding or recognition. Most of these are written by lawyers who have never set foot in a voluntary organisation or sub-statutory funders who want excuses to stop giving out money to make their lives easier. Consequently, although it is vital to have standards themselves, the ones in existence can be irrelevant, counterproductive or downright harmful, preventing organisations from providing valuable services for no good reason. They can lead to absurd situations like people who have come for a service being forced to fill in a questionnaire after receiving that service, thinking they are being spied on and refusing to come to the organisation again. It is also the case that the most determined criminals prosper under this system, as they know how to play the game and misrepresent things like misuse of funds and fraud because the rules of how to misbehave are laid out for them in the standards!

Though it is difficult to get agreed standards, a more responsive system which reflected genuine ability and capacity could be developed by INVOLVING VOLUNTARY SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES in various fields rather than expecting the voluntary setor to jump to standards INVENTED BY EVERYONE ELSE. This is the root of the problem – it is always assumed that everyone else is more capable than people in the voluntary sector, though the performance of other types of organisation (including government) does not support this theory.

 

Abolish the Official Secrets Act

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.

Why is this idea important?

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.

Scrap Ofsted.

Ofsted reports are largely meaningless. I've seen terrible schools get a glowing Ofsted report – all it means is that they've jumped through the hoops and produced the paperwork Ofsted need to cover their own backs. It says little or nothing about how well-educated the students are.

Teachers concentrate so much on impressing Ofsted – and following the Ofsted-supplied formula for what they consider to be "good" teaching, that there is little room for flexibility and innovation. Many of the very best teachers are mavericks who don't follow the rules – and many of them have already been driven out of the profession as it is.

Why is this idea important?

Ofsted reports are largely meaningless. I've seen terrible schools get a glowing Ofsted report – all it means is that they've jumped through the hoops and produced the paperwork Ofsted need to cover their own backs. It says little or nothing about how well-educated the students are.

Teachers concentrate so much on impressing Ofsted – and following the Ofsted-supplied formula for what they consider to be "good" teaching, that there is little room for flexibility and innovation. Many of the very best teachers are mavericks who don't follow the rules – and many of them have already been driven out of the profession as it is.