Have a wider option of forms of identification

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

Why is this idea important?

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

Re-Introduce National Service for youth unemployed.

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Why is this idea important?

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Sentencing for Youths -Referral Orders

Whilst the concept of the Referral Order as a sentence for young people who plead guilty is an excellent one, the use of volunteer panel members from the local community should be reviewed as it slows down the administration of justice, is meaningless in relation to what the voluntary panel brings to the panel meeting and is costly both in time, process and resources.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst the concept of the Referral Order as a sentence for young people who plead guilty is an excellent one, the use of volunteer panel members from the local community should be reviewed as it slows down the administration of justice, is meaningless in relation to what the voluntary panel brings to the panel meeting and is costly both in time, process and resources.

Encourage young entrepreneurs, don’t hold them back

Section 157 of the 2006 Companies Act bans under 16s from being the director of either a company or a charity.  

Whilst I appreciate that this is a law that only directly affects a very small minority of people, they are a very important minority, and it is thus in all out interests that we repeal it.

These people are the cream of the next generation, potential business or community leaders of the future.  Their talent and drive should be nurtured, encouraged and allowed to flourish.  Holding them back to the level of less able youngsters has quite the opposite effect.  

If we want this country to have a future, we should be encouraging our most able and driven youngsters to use their talent to its full potential.  The removal of unnecessary barriers, such as this draconian piece of legislation, is essential to doing this.

Just because this law only restricts a very small minority is not an excuse for its existence, particularly as the very people it is restricting are the same people that we will need to help get this country out of the mess it is in.

A government which cares about the future of this country would repeal this law without hesitation.

Why is this idea important?

Section 157 of the 2006 Companies Act bans under 16s from being the director of either a company or a charity.  

Whilst I appreciate that this is a law that only directly affects a very small minority of people, they are a very important minority, and it is thus in all out interests that we repeal it.

These people are the cream of the next generation, potential business or community leaders of the future.  Their talent and drive should be nurtured, encouraged and allowed to flourish.  Holding them back to the level of less able youngsters has quite the opposite effect.  

If we want this country to have a future, we should be encouraging our most able and driven youngsters to use their talent to its full potential.  The removal of unnecessary barriers, such as this draconian piece of legislation, is essential to doing this.

Just because this law only restricts a very small minority is not an excuse for its existence, particularly as the very people it is restricting are the same people that we will need to help get this country out of the mess it is in.

A government which cares about the future of this country would repeal this law without hesitation.

Legalise kissing between under-16s

Incredibly, sections 9(1)(b), 13(1) and 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 collectively make any sort of "sexual touching" between consenting under-16s illegal.  This includes entirely normal and innocuous activities such as kissing.

What sort of society would do this?  It is quite an extraordinary and shockingly repressive piece of legislation.

"Children of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime."

Why is this idea important?

Incredibly, sections 9(1)(b), 13(1) and 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 collectively make any sort of "sexual touching" between consenting under-16s illegal.  This includes entirely normal and innocuous activities such as kissing.

What sort of society would do this?  It is quite an extraordinary and shockingly repressive piece of legislation.

"Children of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime."

Remove the right to anonymity of 16/17 year olds convicted of crimes

Amend the law that currently provides special legal protection to all under 18s convicted of crimes so that it only applies to those under the age of 16.

By the age of 16, somebody is more than mature enough to face the full consequences of their actions.  The law should reflect this. 

The law as it stands means that the press are prevented from revealing the identity of a 16/17 year old convicted criminal unless the Judge presiding over the case specifically lifts their anonymity.  The result of this is that the media report that ‘A 16 year old, who can not be named for legal reasons has been convicted of …’.  This tarnishes the reputation of all 16 year olds, even though the vast majority would never dream of committing the crime that that individual 16 year old has been convicted of committing, as it gives the impression that:

(a) It could be any 16 year old who has done it, and

(b) There is a likelihood that any 16 year old might commit a similar crime. 

This is not the case.

As with any other age group, the vast majority of criminal offences are committed by a very small minority.  This small minority should be forced to take full responsibility for their actions. 

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law that currently provides special legal protection to all under 18s convicted of crimes so that it only applies to those under the age of 16.

By the age of 16, somebody is more than mature enough to face the full consequences of their actions.  The law should reflect this. 

The law as it stands means that the press are prevented from revealing the identity of a 16/17 year old convicted criminal unless the Judge presiding over the case specifically lifts their anonymity.  The result of this is that the media report that ‘A 16 year old, who can not be named for legal reasons has been convicted of …’.  This tarnishes the reputation of all 16 year olds, even though the vast majority would never dream of committing the crime that that individual 16 year old has been convicted of committing, as it gives the impression that:

(a) It could be any 16 year old who has done it, and

(b) There is a likelihood that any 16 year old might commit a similar crime. 

This is not the case.

As with any other age group, the vast majority of criminal offences are committed by a very small minority.  This small minority should be forced to take full responsibility for their actions. 

Scrap sex laws that discriminate against teachers.

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

Why is this idea important?

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

Remove young people from police databases

Young people gathering in groups in the evening are seen as a threat by the police, who often ask them to move on and take their names.  These names are then entered into a database and stored for 100 years.  If it is essential to store details of young people who have done little except hang around with a group of friends after dark, and only if it is essential, a 12 month period is long enough, especially as many of these young people are under 18 years old.  This needs to happen immediately and all details of people who have not gone on to commit a crime should be removed permanently.

Why is this idea important?

Young people gathering in groups in the evening are seen as a threat by the police, who often ask them to move on and take their names.  These names are then entered into a database and stored for 100 years.  If it is essential to store details of young people who have done little except hang around with a group of friends after dark, and only if it is essential, a 12 month period is long enough, especially as many of these young people are under 18 years old.  This needs to happen immediately and all details of people who have not gone on to commit a crime should be removed permanently.

16 and 17 year olds & the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Repeal of Part 1, Section 45, Clauses 1 and 2, and related

This section extends the definition of "child" from the Protection of Children Act (1978) to cover persons of 16 and 17 years. This age group is thereby covered by child pornography laws in the aforementioned 1978 act and elsewhere. It is thusly illegal to make "indecent" images of 16 and 17 year olds (or indeed in most cases for 16 and 17 year olds to make such images of themselves.) [The term "indecent" is undefined in law.]

The main problem with this legislation is that it is logically and morally incompatible with the age of sexual consent being 16 years. A recording or depiction of a lawful act should not be unlawful; neither should persons who are legally recognised as sexual beings – and therefore adults in that regard – be prohibited from recording or depicting themselves, or consenting to be recorded or depicted, as sexual beings. While the motivation behind the extension of protection to 16 and 17 year olds was well-meaning, it does not make rational or moral sense that an image or recording of a person with whom one can legally have sexual intercourse should be legally defined as "child pornography". The protection of children and young people from exploitation is paramount to a just and decent society; however, the laws by which we live our lives should also make a modicum of sense. This inconsistency in the legislation could alternatively be rectified equally well by raising the age of sexual consent to 18.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of Part 1, Section 45, Clauses 1 and 2, and related

This section extends the definition of "child" from the Protection of Children Act (1978) to cover persons of 16 and 17 years. This age group is thereby covered by child pornography laws in the aforementioned 1978 act and elsewhere. It is thusly illegal to make "indecent" images of 16 and 17 year olds (or indeed in most cases for 16 and 17 year olds to make such images of themselves.) [The term "indecent" is undefined in law.]

The main problem with this legislation is that it is logically and morally incompatible with the age of sexual consent being 16 years. A recording or depiction of a lawful act should not be unlawful; neither should persons who are legally recognised as sexual beings – and therefore adults in that regard – be prohibited from recording or depicting themselves, or consenting to be recorded or depicted, as sexual beings. While the motivation behind the extension of protection to 16 and 17 year olds was well-meaning, it does not make rational or moral sense that an image or recording of a person with whom one can legally have sexual intercourse should be legally defined as "child pornography". The protection of children and young people from exploitation is paramount to a just and decent society; however, the laws by which we live our lives should also make a modicum of sense. This inconsistency in the legislation could alternatively be rectified equally well by raising the age of sexual consent to 18.

Voting age lowered to 16.

At the age of sixteen one can get a full time job and are entitled to recieve the minimum wage or higher. At the age of sixteen one has to pay national insurance and income tax on any money earnt. At the age of sixteen one CANNOT vote. This is ridiculous, if someone put money into the economy by taxes they sould have the oppurtunity to vote for what they believe in and who they think will do the best job in running the country. David Millaband, the most likely next Labour leader said he would propose to bring the voting age down to 16 and that is why as soon as i turn 15 this November I am becoming a member of the Labour party. People say that young people will not make the right descisions and they will not think about what they want. That is wrong, the next five years will have abig impact on my life and I want every possible opportunity i can get from who i want to run the country. You only have to look to The Netherlands to see that lowering an age limit has a positive impact. In The Netherlands, the age of consent is 12, yet it still has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. This is because they are taught about the effects of sex early and they know what is right and what is wrong.

Why is this idea important?

At the age of sixteen one can get a full time job and are entitled to recieve the minimum wage or higher. At the age of sixteen one has to pay national insurance and income tax on any money earnt. At the age of sixteen one CANNOT vote. This is ridiculous, if someone put money into the economy by taxes they sould have the oppurtunity to vote for what they believe in and who they think will do the best job in running the country. David Millaband, the most likely next Labour leader said he would propose to bring the voting age down to 16 and that is why as soon as i turn 15 this November I am becoming a member of the Labour party. People say that young people will not make the right descisions and they will not think about what they want. That is wrong, the next five years will have abig impact on my life and I want every possible opportunity i can get from who i want to run the country. You only have to look to The Netherlands to see that lowering an age limit has a positive impact. In The Netherlands, the age of consent is 12, yet it still has one of the lowest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. This is because they are taught about the effects of sex early and they know what is right and what is wrong.

Require businesses to create entry-level jobs

Businesses should be required to have at least 5% of positions in their companies set aside for people without experience in the sector. This can be 5% rounded down, so companies with under 20 workers would not be affected, companies with 20 – 39 employees would need to have one position etc.

Why is this idea important?

Businesses should be required to have at least 5% of positions in their companies set aside for people without experience in the sector. This can be 5% rounded down, so companies with under 20 workers would not be affected, companies with 20 – 39 employees would need to have one position etc.

Simplify age restrictions.

What sense does it make that you can have sex at 16, but you can't see an 18-certificate film at the cinema because it might contain adult sexual material? You can do it, but you can't watch it – yet you can't get a sexually transmitted disease from a film! And how can you be mature enough to get married at 16, but not mature enough to vote until you are 18?

There should be a single age at which you legally become an adult, deemed capable of making important decisions for yourself. This is the age at which you should be allowed to vote, have sex, buy alcohol, gamble and get married.

Why is this idea important?

What sense does it make that you can have sex at 16, but you can't see an 18-certificate film at the cinema because it might contain adult sexual material? You can do it, but you can't watch it – yet you can't get a sexually transmitted disease from a film! And how can you be mature enough to get married at 16, but not mature enough to vote until you are 18?

There should be a single age at which you legally become an adult, deemed capable of making important decisions for yourself. This is the age at which you should be allowed to vote, have sex, buy alcohol, gamble and get married.

Apprenticeships should be available for all, not just the young

I propose that the law is changed when it comes to apprenticeships and pay.

Currently, if you'd like (or need) to change vocations in the UK, it is almost impossible to do so if you are aged over 19.

The reason for this obstacle is that the law currently states employers must begin paying the full adult rate minimum wage after 12 months if the apprentice is aged over 19 (despite the fact they are nowhere near qualifying in their new trade), whilst 16-19 year olds are able to work on the apprentice minimum wage rate for the entire 2-3 years it takes to complete the NVQ and become qualified.

I propose that the "12 month limit" for those apprentices choosing to retrain over the age of 19 is removed entirely, so that regardless of age, employers are able to take on any apprentice for the full 2-3 years it takes to complete their studies; not just the young.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that the law is changed when it comes to apprenticeships and pay.

Currently, if you'd like (or need) to change vocations in the UK, it is almost impossible to do so if you are aged over 19.

The reason for this obstacle is that the law currently states employers must begin paying the full adult rate minimum wage after 12 months if the apprentice is aged over 19 (despite the fact they are nowhere near qualifying in their new trade), whilst 16-19 year olds are able to work on the apprentice minimum wage rate for the entire 2-3 years it takes to complete the NVQ and become qualified.

I propose that the "12 month limit" for those apprentices choosing to retrain over the age of 19 is removed entirely, so that regardless of age, employers are able to take on any apprentice for the full 2-3 years it takes to complete their studies; not just the young.

Ban Mosquito Devices

Ensure that no 'Mosquito' devices, designed to deter youg people from remaining in an area by emitting a high pitched noise only their more sensitive hearing can detect, can ever be used anywhere against young people.  Completely ban them.

Why is this idea important?

Ensure that no 'Mosquito' devices, designed to deter youg people from remaining in an area by emitting a high pitched noise only their more sensitive hearing can detect, can ever be used anywhere against young people.  Completely ban them.

nurses

at 16 years of age i became a cadet nurse 60 years ago now, working in almost all different depts medical records, almoners office, clinics -booking appointments , booking ambulances ,diet kitchen,laundry/sewing room,theory was you went on at 18 to train as srn i loved what i was doing and yes 16 year olds are responsible enough to do this but unfortunately nursing wasnt for me but its a really good way of employing 16-18 year olds. having been an inpatient for 2 weeks 6 years ago i could see how usefully this could be adapted i.e helping to feed elderly people giving them drinks maybe just walking around and speaking to people who are elderly and maybe dont have any visitors, this could even be adapted for people in my age group.

Why is this idea important?

at 16 years of age i became a cadet nurse 60 years ago now, working in almost all different depts medical records, almoners office, clinics -booking appointments , booking ambulances ,diet kitchen,laundry/sewing room,theory was you went on at 18 to train as srn i loved what i was doing and yes 16 year olds are responsible enough to do this but unfortunately nursing wasnt for me but its a really good way of employing 16-18 year olds. having been an inpatient for 2 weeks 6 years ago i could see how usefully this could be adapted i.e helping to feed elderly people giving them drinks maybe just walking around and speaking to people who are elderly and maybe dont have any visitors, this could even be adapted for people in my age group.

Right to own property

So many young people cannot afford a property due to a culture of objection to new building, meanwhile older more affluent people and buy to letters have been buying up portfolios of houses driving costs up prohibitively and caused a pricing bubble that burst.

 

Lets build more houses.

 

Owning a property needs to become a right as it causes social damage (people living with people they don't want to for longer, not being able to start a family until later, stopping people from settling etc)

A step taxation system for 3rd property owners needs to be introduced to make each subsequent property that they own less profitable. 

Why is this idea important?

So many young people cannot afford a property due to a culture of objection to new building, meanwhile older more affluent people and buy to letters have been buying up portfolios of houses driving costs up prohibitively and caused a pricing bubble that burst.

 

Lets build more houses.

 

Owning a property needs to become a right as it causes social damage (people living with people they don't want to for longer, not being able to start a family until later, stopping people from settling etc)

A step taxation system for 3rd property owners needs to be introduced to make each subsequent property that they own less profitable. 

parents freedom to exclude their children from sex education

Parents should be free to know exactly what is to be taught their children in sex education lessons and to have the freedom to remove their children from these lessons if they are unhappy about what is to be taught

Why is this idea important?

Parents should be free to know exactly what is to be taught their children in sex education lessons and to have the freedom to remove their children from these lessons if they are unhappy about what is to be taught

Stop applying child entertainment employment regulations to Youth Theatres/Dance Schools etc

Currently laws that were properly put in place to protect children's welfare and prevent exploitation in the professional theatre are being applied in a nonsensical fashion to youth theatres, dance schools and other youth participation groups involving performance.  The civil liberties of the children are being infringed by the draconian regulations which have to be enforced by voluntary but registered chaperones. It is as if during the week of the actual performance a barbed wire fence suddenly goes up around the children.  They think this is mad and so do the adults obliged to enforce the madness. Why, when the children are in the theatre during performance with exactly the same group of children and adults with whom they have been working for months, are they suddenly not able to exercise any personal freedom? This is NOT child protection it is child oppression. 

Why is this idea important?

Currently laws that were properly put in place to protect children's welfare and prevent exploitation in the professional theatre are being applied in a nonsensical fashion to youth theatres, dance schools and other youth participation groups involving performance.  The civil liberties of the children are being infringed by the draconian regulations which have to be enforced by voluntary but registered chaperones. It is as if during the week of the actual performance a barbed wire fence suddenly goes up around the children.  They think this is mad and so do the adults obliged to enforce the madness. Why, when the children are in the theatre during performance with exactly the same group of children and adults with whom they have been working for months, are they suddenly not able to exercise any personal freedom? This is NOT child protection it is child oppression. 

Restrictions on 16 and 17 year olds voting

That the restriction on 16 and 17 year olds voting in all elections should be removed. It is essentially taxation without representation. The current status that 16 and 17 year olds can serve in the armed forces and pay tax yet they their opinions are not represented are fundamentally against democratic rights.

Why is this idea important?

That the restriction on 16 and 17 year olds voting in all elections should be removed. It is essentially taxation without representation. The current status that 16 and 17 year olds can serve in the armed forces and pay tax yet they their opinions are not represented are fundamentally against democratic rights.

Stop Connexions hassling young people!

Just scrap Connexions full stop and replace it with a proper careers service to get this country up-skilled and working!

Connexions is a target driven 'careers' organisation obsessed with 'NEET' (not in education, employment or training) statistics. It's existence is to monitor young peoples activities and maintain big brother databases of their wereabouts and movements. It is more important to tick boxes about young peoples activities than provide good independent careers advice.

Go for it!

Why is this idea important?

Just scrap Connexions full stop and replace it with a proper careers service to get this country up-skilled and working!

Connexions is a target driven 'careers' organisation obsessed with 'NEET' (not in education, employment or training) statistics. It's existence is to monitor young peoples activities and maintain big brother databases of their wereabouts and movements. It is more important to tick boxes about young peoples activities than provide good independent careers advice.

Go for it!

CRB Certificates to be transferrable

At present every person working or volunteering at an organisation in which they deal with children or vulnerable adults needs a CRB certificate through that organisation.  Therefore, somebody undertaking duties for different organisations needs multiple CRB certificates.  I have 5, I know people with even more.  This is time consuming and costly.  If CRB certificates were transferrable this pointless waste would be avoided.

Why is this idea important?

At present every person working or volunteering at an organisation in which they deal with children or vulnerable adults needs a CRB certificate through that organisation.  Therefore, somebody undertaking duties for different organisations needs multiple CRB certificates.  I have 5, I know people with even more.  This is time consuming and costly.  If CRB certificates were transferrable this pointless waste would be avoided.