Museum Entry Charges

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

Why is this idea important?

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

The legalistion and taxation of mainstream recreational drugs

I would like to see the abolition of laws relating to the criminalisation of recreational drugs, which in my opinion no longer serve any purpose other than to line the pockets of legal proffessionals and drug lords.

In order to explain my idea I will use my own real life example.

My house was burgled, the police came for which I paid.

The scene of crimes team came for which I paid.

The burgler was captured on an unrelated offence for which I paid.

He spent several months on remand in a nice cell with three meals a day and a colour tv for which I paid.

He was taken to court for which I paid

He had no income so asked for legal aid for which I paid.

The CPS managed to secure a conviction, for which I paid.

In exchange for a lighter sentence he was put on a rehab course for which I paid.

He is now staying in jail with hs colour tv, three meals a day, gym etc for a few more months, for which I'll pay.

When he gets out the most likely outcome is that the whole cycle will repeat itself, for which, we will all (one way or another) pay.

I just got through my house insurance renewal, with monotonus predictability my premium has risen sharply, and you dont need me to tell you the outcome of that.

In this whole scenario three types pf people made money. The drug grower/importer. THe street dealer, the addict (selling my stuff and smashing open my three year olds rupert bear piggy bank which was just too classy for words). Throughout the scenario one type of person got to pay for everything, me the taxpayer. This situation is desperately unfair and just goes on while the war against drugs has saldy and most clearly been lost, how long can we be expected to pay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the abolition of laws relating to the criminalisation of recreational drugs, which in my opinion no longer serve any purpose other than to line the pockets of legal proffessionals and drug lords.

In order to explain my idea I will use my own real life example.

My house was burgled, the police came for which I paid.

The scene of crimes team came for which I paid.

The burgler was captured on an unrelated offence for which I paid.

He spent several months on remand in a nice cell with three meals a day and a colour tv for which I paid.

He was taken to court for which I paid

He had no income so asked for legal aid for which I paid.

The CPS managed to secure a conviction, for which I paid.

In exchange for a lighter sentence he was put on a rehab course for which I paid.

He is now staying in jail with hs colour tv, three meals a day, gym etc for a few more months, for which I'll pay.

When he gets out the most likely outcome is that the whole cycle will repeat itself, for which, we will all (one way or another) pay.

I just got through my house insurance renewal, with monotonus predictability my premium has risen sharply, and you dont need me to tell you the outcome of that.

In this whole scenario three types pf people made money. The drug grower/importer. THe street dealer, the addict (selling my stuff and smashing open my three year olds rupert bear piggy bank which was just too classy for words). Throughout the scenario one type of person got to pay for everything, me the taxpayer. This situation is desperately unfair and just goes on while the war against drugs has saldy and most clearly been lost, how long can we be expected to pay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repeal the Human Rights Act

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Stop Travellers abuse of Human Rights laws to block planning enforcement

I am appauled that recently there have been several cases where travellers have purchased some land, then moved onto it very quickly and without any planning permission. Setting up mobile homes and small villages, Yet councils are unable to act to remove them.

The loophole is they own the land and so are not trespassing, they have breached planning regulation but that is not seen as a serious crime, despite the wanton deliberate and mass intention to do so. They then use Civil Liberties and Human Rights laws as an excuse to remain living there, install drainage, build walls and shelters and even roads… all without legal permission. It may take years to chase them through the courts, plus appeals, wastes councils time and money and therefore costs us all money.

They must forfeit their rights on the grounds that they have deliberately, wantonly, en-mass and with planned deception and intention gone about becoming residential illegally on their land.

Due to the massively deliberate illegal natue of their actions they should  loose their rights and be immediately evicted from the sites, by force if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

I am appauled that recently there have been several cases where travellers have purchased some land, then moved onto it very quickly and without any planning permission. Setting up mobile homes and small villages, Yet councils are unable to act to remove them.

The loophole is they own the land and so are not trespassing, they have breached planning regulation but that is not seen as a serious crime, despite the wanton deliberate and mass intention to do so. They then use Civil Liberties and Human Rights laws as an excuse to remain living there, install drainage, build walls and shelters and even roads… all without legal permission. It may take years to chase them through the courts, plus appeals, wastes councils time and money and therefore costs us all money.

They must forfeit their rights on the grounds that they have deliberately, wantonly, en-mass and with planned deception and intention gone about becoming residential illegally on their land.

Due to the massively deliberate illegal natue of their actions they should  loose their rights and be immediately evicted from the sites, by force if necessary.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.