Remove requirement for top level football grounds to be all-seated

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Why is this idea important?

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Repeal law that allows companies to set up continous payment authority

Repeal law that allows companies to set up continous payment authority and make all payments made by debit / credit cards only direct debits.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal law that allows companies to set up continous payment authority and make all payments made by debit / credit cards only direct debits.

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Job grant, unfair to the hard working people in society

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

What’s the purpose of Benefit contact centres? are they a total waste of money

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I was given a telephone number of what is called a contact centre, where I was advised that advice to benefits available to me would be given. I telephoned the contact centre numerously, which in turn lead to to write to the chief executive of jobcentre plus.  In fact many letters to this day which still have not answered my query. 

Years ago we used to have decision makers based in local jobcentreplus offices, yet this is no more. Now we have telephone contact centres. Yet, people working in these centres are not benefit advisers, as they have told me numerously they are simply  ' information gatherers'.  They are unable to advise you on what benefits you can claim.  

Unless a person knows the benefits system inside out as many or rather most people don't, this leaves people who should be claiming certain benefits not being told of their entitlement to claim. Yet, very unfairly it is a persons responsibility to find out for themselves what benefits they are entitled to claim.  I ask how this is possible  to do, especially people who have no access to the internet to look at the gov uk website.  The only information they would be able to get is from a contact centre, who like I say are not benefit advisers.

The only people who can tell you what benefits you are entitled to claim are decision makers, yet claims have to be submitted for a decision maker to decide if a claim is possible.

Therefore without knowing what benefit to apply for, how is it possible to put in a claim?

This leaves Jobcentreplus's work left to the CAB, slightly unfair since the CAB have more knowledge than people working in contact centres. CAB is also not always accessible to some disabled people.

Also, it is clear when making a call to a contact centre that all information given is recorded. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that they have a yes or no button to use with their  'script' as I call it. If for example you have a person moving out shortly from your property, or make some small mistake , or they press the wrong button, you could then be accused of trying to commit benefit fraud.

 

 

DFG means testing should be fair

The Disabled Facilities Grant means testing for working disabled people in Central Bedfordshire only looks at household income and does not take into account household outgoings. Means testing that does not test your means? Ludicrous and totally unfair!

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Disabled Facilities Grant means testing for working disabled people in Central Bedfordshire only looks at household income and does not take into account household outgoings. Means testing that does not test your means? Ludicrous and totally unfair!

 

 

Sacked for complaining about work on Facebook

It's shocking that a person can be sacked by their company for complaining about their job on Facebook, even if they haven't included details of where they work on their details page.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Why is this idea important?

It's shocking that a person can be sacked by their company for complaining about their job on Facebook, even if they haven't included details of where they work on their details page.

What happened to freedom of speech?

INIQUITOUS ‘SORN’ LAW MUST BE REPEALED

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

Why is this idea important?

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Income tax avoidance by corporate employees

There are several tax free incentives that corpoates exploit on behalf of their employees which smaller emplloyers don't know of/can't exploit on behalf of their employees. Corpoates present them along with deals from other firms as benefits -eg vouchers with money off and add them as part of a "reward package". eg Did you know that if you use a push bike for all or part of your journey to work you can claim the income tax paid when you buy a new one? this whole area should be investigated and simplified. In the past the purchase of computer equipment had a tax break too.

Why is this idea important?

There are several tax free incentives that corpoates exploit on behalf of their employees which smaller emplloyers don't know of/can't exploit on behalf of their employees. Corpoates present them along with deals from other firms as benefits -eg vouchers with money off and add them as part of a "reward package". eg Did you know that if you use a push bike for all or part of your journey to work you can claim the income tax paid when you buy a new one? this whole area should be investigated and simplified. In the past the purchase of computer equipment had a tax break too.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 – criminalising people travelling without a train ticket

Train operating companies (TOCs) use an ancient piece of legislation, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, to bring train fare "evaders" to court, resulting in the person receiving a criminal record and taking up the courts' valuable time. This piece of legislation is draconian, unnecessary and unfair and it should be repealed. 

Why is this idea important?

Train operating companies (TOCs) use an ancient piece of legislation, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, to bring train fare "evaders" to court, resulting in the person receiving a criminal record and taking up the courts' valuable time. This piece of legislation is draconian, unnecessary and unfair and it should be repealed. 

Remove insurance companies’ exemption from rules governing unfair clauses and disclaimers

Insurance companies are exempt from the regulations which prohibit unfair clauses and disclaimers in contracts.  This means that insurance companies are effectively exempt from consumer law.  They can charge as much as they like, but deliver as little as they like – and for any reason they like.

 

This exemption needs to be removed as soon as possible.

Why is this idea important?

Insurance companies are exempt from the regulations which prohibit unfair clauses and disclaimers in contracts.  This means that insurance companies are effectively exempt from consumer law.  They can charge as much as they like, but deliver as little as they like – and for any reason they like.

 

This exemption needs to be removed as soon as possible.

remove out of job centre placements such as A4e.

Remove all the tin pot unemployment courses such as A4E.  who sit at least 20 unemployed into a small room sharing a couple of computers. its unproductive with a  verrrrrry remote chance of gaining employment. STOP THESE COURSES THEY DO NOT WORK……..

 CREATE PROPER SENIOR APPRENTICE COURSES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

Why is this idea important?

Remove all the tin pot unemployment courses such as A4E.  who sit at least 20 unemployed into a small room sharing a couple of computers. its unproductive with a  verrrrrry remote chance of gaining employment. STOP THESE COURSES THEY DO NOT WORK……..

 CREATE PROPER SENIOR APPRENTICE COURSES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

Underage Drinking Responsibility

I think that it is unfair that as a shop employee I can be held personally accountable for selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18. Also that trading standards have been known to send people into the shop where I work that look well over the age of 18.

Currently we can pay an on-the-spot fine or take the matter to court. If we take the matter to court you may be issued with a £1,000 fine and a Criminal Record.

I believe that it should always be the business that it held responsible, or that the appeals process should be made fairer on shop-workers. I am law abiding I have 3 jobs and I don't have the choice of what department to work on in my Supermarket. I am a checkout worker and think that this is one of the more un-fair laws that exist.

I challenge when I think an individual looks under the age of 25, however even that is sometimes hard to determine and when you ask someone there age and it turns out their 30 then the situation can turn intimidating.

So please think about the people that sell you your weekly shopping and are put under this additional appeals process pressure and change it.

Why is this idea important?

I think that it is unfair that as a shop employee I can be held personally accountable for selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18. Also that trading standards have been known to send people into the shop where I work that look well over the age of 18.

Currently we can pay an on-the-spot fine or take the matter to court. If we take the matter to court you may be issued with a £1,000 fine and a Criminal Record.

I believe that it should always be the business that it held responsible, or that the appeals process should be made fairer on shop-workers. I am law abiding I have 3 jobs and I don't have the choice of what department to work on in my Supermarket. I am a checkout worker and think that this is one of the more un-fair laws that exist.

I challenge when I think an individual looks under the age of 25, however even that is sometimes hard to determine and when you ask someone there age and it turns out their 30 then the situation can turn intimidating.

So please think about the people that sell you your weekly shopping and are put under this additional appeals process pressure and change it.

Hospital Car Parking

Please, please look into this unjust punishment for anyone who is unfortunate enough to have to visit  a hospital for any reason.  Staff, visitor, or the patient.  Car parking at hospitals is the most unjustified punishment for those already in need of treatment/ friends or family of those receiving treatment.

No one, but no one, chooses to go to hospital – its a need or a must.

Staff are punished and fined for overrunning or omitting to show the latest parking ticket, even though the money is deducted directly from salary – so the hospital know in advance that those staff have paid.  I have been told that even in these circumstances, they are forced to pay a fine if the appropriate piece of evidence is not on view.

All car parking charges at hospitals are unfair and unjustified – please take it on board.

 

Why is this idea important?

Please, please look into this unjust punishment for anyone who is unfortunate enough to have to visit  a hospital for any reason.  Staff, visitor, or the patient.  Car parking at hospitals is the most unjustified punishment for those already in need of treatment/ friends or family of those receiving treatment.

No one, but no one, chooses to go to hospital – its a need or a must.

Staff are punished and fined for overrunning or omitting to show the latest parking ticket, even though the money is deducted directly from salary – so the hospital know in advance that those staff have paid.  I have been told that even in these circumstances, they are forced to pay a fine if the appropriate piece of evidence is not on view.

All car parking charges at hospitals are unfair and unjustified – please take it on board.

 

Unfair bank charges

 

 

My idea is to bring in a retrospective law, that makes it unlawful for banks to charge above £3.00 for bounced direct debits, unauthorized overdrafts, and late payments etc, also no charges should be taken out of people benefits without a court order, this will protect the most vulnerable people on our society.  

Why, because banks have all the power and money need to fight lengthy court hearing, consumers who get these charges are mostly the people who can least afford legal representation.

Furthermore, a £35,00 charges for going overdrawn by as little a 1p is just unjust and wrong. What is more these charges can and do pile up. Forcing people into a spiral of debt that can amount to thousands.  

All Parties and their leaders  said the banks were behaving badly and said they believed these charges should be unlawful,  well you know have the power to do something, I hope you will  now put into action what you said you believed was wrong  and pass a law to make sure all the money that had been taken will be returned.

 

For more information please see www.penaltycharges.co.uk the first and leading site for justice for all consumers 

Why is this idea important?

 

 

My idea is to bring in a retrospective law, that makes it unlawful for banks to charge above £3.00 for bounced direct debits, unauthorized overdrafts, and late payments etc, also no charges should be taken out of people benefits without a court order, this will protect the most vulnerable people on our society.  

Why, because banks have all the power and money need to fight lengthy court hearing, consumers who get these charges are mostly the people who can least afford legal representation.

Furthermore, a £35,00 charges for going overdrawn by as little a 1p is just unjust and wrong. What is more these charges can and do pile up. Forcing people into a spiral of debt that can amount to thousands.  

All Parties and their leaders  said the banks were behaving badly and said they believed these charges should be unlawful,  well you know have the power to do something, I hope you will  now put into action what you said you believed was wrong  and pass a law to make sure all the money that had been taken will be returned.

 

For more information please see www.penaltycharges.co.uk the first and leading site for justice for all consumers 

Repeal specific offences where a more general law exists

Many specific offences have been created where the behaviour they are apparently intended to curb are already covered by a general law. For instance what need is there for a specific ban on using a mobile phone when driving when there are already provisions in the Road Traffic Act to penalise careless and dangerous driving?

Why is this idea important?

Many specific offences have been created where the behaviour they are apparently intended to curb are already covered by a general law. For instance what need is there for a specific ban on using a mobile phone when driving when there are already provisions in the Road Traffic Act to penalise careless and dangerous driving?

repeal the control of alcohol at sports ground act

Football stadia are now the only "designated" sports grounds where this act applies.

The law is outdated and while relevant when it was introduced, now seems restrictive and unfair to the vast majority of Football fans.

Why is this idea important?

Football stadia are now the only "designated" sports grounds where this act applies.

The law is outdated and while relevant when it was introduced, now seems restrictive and unfair to the vast majority of Football fans.

Repeal the five year mandatory minimum sentence for firearms possession

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Simply possessing a firearm in your own home does not make you a threat to society, needing jail time on par with a violent criminal. Seeing as how there is no victim involved, the current sentencing rules on firearm possession are disproportionate, hidiously draconian and make a mockery of the role of judges in sentencing.

Part. 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be repealed immediately.

Time limit on civil laws,

Hello
I am not a very well man and have a heart problem and stomach condition. I must stay away from stress under all  circumstances. this boils down to my problem which I think is most unfair. Two solicitors have informed  me that I have been treated most unfairly  by the law. The reason I cannot correct this is the law on OUT OF TIME. Now  if you are in jail for murder and you can prove that you are not guilty there is no limit out of  time. Now because my case resolves around money there is a time limit. I can understand that you don't want to keep hearing the same old cases over and over again due to peoples' memory fading, documents get lost etc etc but when you can substantially prove that you have been treated wronglyand can prove it very easily with DOCUMENTS. You should be alowed to do so regardless of the time limit.
 
This country has a reputation for being fair and just but some times people are let down by the system and should ALWAYS ALWAYS  have an avenue to turn to, to put it right ,
I have suffered over  the years for something I did not do, that cannot be right. I hope I get a response from you on this  point. The bottom line is there should be always a way to rectify an issue in law and the time limit should not hinder it, should  you have the indisputable evidence backed by a solicitor, to prove your case
  Thank you
Barry Ryan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Why is this idea important?

Hello
I am not a very well man and have a heart problem and stomach condition. I must stay away from stress under all  circumstances. this boils down to my problem which I think is most unfair. Two solicitors have informed  me that I have been treated most unfairly  by the law. The reason I cannot correct this is the law on OUT OF TIME. Now  if you are in jail for murder and you can prove that you are not guilty there is no limit out of  time. Now because my case resolves around money there is a time limit. I can understand that you don't want to keep hearing the same old cases over and over again due to peoples' memory fading, documents get lost etc etc but when you can substantially prove that you have been treated wronglyand can prove it very easily with DOCUMENTS. You should be alowed to do so regardless of the time limit.
 
This country has a reputation for being fair and just but some times people are let down by the system and should ALWAYS ALWAYS  have an avenue to turn to, to put it right ,
I have suffered over  the years for something I did not do, that cannot be right. I hope I get a response from you on this  point. The bottom line is there should be always a way to rectify an issue in law and the time limit should not hinder it, should  you have the indisputable evidence backed by a solicitor, to prove your case
  Thank you
Barry Ryan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repeal archaic law for church chancel repair obligation

There is an ancient law where a church can force people living in the parish to pay for the cost of church repairs. There have been a few cases in recent years where people have had large bills. The funds are raised from all residents, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of whether they have any connection with the church.

Why is this idea important?

There is an ancient law where a church can force people living in the parish to pay for the cost of church repairs. There have been a few cases in recent years where people have had large bills. The funds are raised from all residents, regardless of ability to pay and regardless of whether they have any connection with the church.