Posted by Ben @ August 16th, 2011 10:18 pm. Filed under: Abolish This!,Anything I Want Is A Human Right,Anything I Want Should Be Legal,Are You Kidding? We Can't Afford That!,Clearly You've Thought This Through,Hanging's Too Good For 'Em!,It Says So In The Daily Mail,Join the Fight Against Nebulous Bad-Sounding Things!,Nobody Else Deserves Free Money!,Really REALLY Bad Ideas,Stop Spending My Money On Things I Don't Understand.,These Kids Today With Their Modern Haircuts And Hippetty-Hop Music,Unworkable Ideas,What Have Other People Ever Done For Me?,Work Around My Delusions Dammit!,Xenophobia — Tags: Alan Young, David Moss, mark predeth, Peter Stephen Andrews —
Time for a short collection of lunacy. Where shall we begin? Oh yes, with the person who wants to be able to bludgeon unwanted house guests to death with a roaring oar:
by Alan YoungThe law regarding self-defence should be altered to make explicit that a householder is entitled to use any and all measures against an unlawful intruder within their home without fear of prosecution or any requirement to demonstrate proportionality or ‘reasonableness’ of response.
I am inexplicably reminded of a bit from Terry Pratchett’s “Hogfather” (I’ll quote from the TV version, here):
Lord Downey: You nailed Sir George’s dog to the ceiling.
Teatime: I couldn’t have it barking while I was working, sir.
Lord Downey: Some people would have drugged it.
Teatime: Oh! But I definitely fulfilled the contract. I checked Sir George’s breathing with a mirror, as instructed.
Lord Downey: Apparently his head was several feet from his body at that point.
Teatime: That was all right, wasn’t it, sir?
Lord Downey: It lacked elegance.
Right, what else have we got?
by mark predethWe the undersigned call on the government to restrict immigration to the United kingdom to a fixed numer of 50000 people per year and no more
by Peter Stephen AndrewsI would like the death penalty brought back. I’m sick of soft sentencing. I’m sick of criminals scoffing in the face of the law, our country and communities!
Wrongful convictions though, eh? Rather difficult to pardon someone you’ve just injected with poison, isn’t it? That is to say nothing of this very valid point.
by David MossThe government needs to stop paying people child associated benefits once they have had two children. Not only do more tax credits have to be paid, more child benefits but also housing benefits, NHS costs for birth and through life, education costs etc etc. Stopping benefits after 2 children will make people think more carefully about having large families and their huge tangible and intangible burden on the state. They will no longer be incentivised to have a lot of children, get more benefits and never work. More worringly this culture is passed onto the children and they adopt the same approach until it becomes totally unsustainable.
“Sorry Susan, but as your father and I just lost our jobs and the government will only pay child support for two of our children I’m afraid you’ll simply have to starve to death.”
Posted by Ben @ August 6th, 2011 8:20 am. Filed under: ...Or Else!,Anything I Want Should Be Legal,Clearly You've Thought This Through,Commas,Everyone Stop What You're Doing Because You're Mildly Inconveniencing Me,Lord Knows I Ask Not For Myself,My Other Car Is Another Car,Presumably The Prime Minister Is Not Too Busy,Really REALLY Bad Ideas,That'd Be Nice — Tags: Ben Spiller —
Apparently getting rid of that that twelve-second period of waiting at a crossing when there’s nobody there is absolutely vital:
by Ben SpillerThe Prime Minister should make an announcement saying that there are no cameras on any pelican crossings in the country. Then, tell everyone that if the light is on red, and there is nobody on the crossing, just GO! This would save Billions of pounds to the economy, increase our standard of life and reduce carbon footprint.
What, Ben, is your problem? Is your schedule so important that being held up by a red light for a fistful of seconds is enough to throw your entire day out of whack? Here’s some advice – if you find yourself at Pelican Crossing while there’s a red light and nobody waiting to cross the road, just take a deep breath, count to ten, then… ah, fuck that. Just write another angry note to the Prime Minister. Your inability to cope with minor delays is exactly the reason he got into politics, after all.
Andrew Stoney has a simple idea to make the government “not sure/prefer not to say” pounds:
by ANDREW STONEY
30/03/2011 05:41 PM GMTMaking revenue from Google advertising that target specific videos that relate to different websites & my own videos.
Here, genuinely, is his latest video:
I think we can all agree that this would be fantastically lucrative.
on August 30, 2010 at 12:40PM
I just wanted to draw the attention on 22% of the charity money that the charities deduct saying as administration fees. I think this is utterly wrong and it put me off from doing charity. Charity has to be volunteer and should not be looked upon as a business or carrier.
A Simple Example how i was put of from donating even one pound a month is one day a guy walked into my work place and asked me to help a boy in africa get clean water. He said it can be done by giving just £1 a month. I just asked him out of this pound how much money goes to africa he told me 78p goes to africa an 22p is deducted as administration costs.
It was about this£1 very small amount but imagine this Charity would be Raising 1 Million Pounds in charity and Simply keeping £220,000 with them as adminstartion cost.
I think charities have to work voluntarly and they should not deduct any money from the charity money given by any induvidual.
Everyone involved in the charity business should just work as a volunteer and not take any money. Even the companies invoved like the money exchange comapny, The Banks, The business providing the materials should be free and should not incurr any costs.
I am sorry if anyone is offened but i think if we make it more clearer it will encourage more pleople like me to do some charity.
Regards to everyone.
Why the contribution is important
This idea put off lot of people from doing charity s i feel that UK might be raising nearly a Billion pounds in charity ever year but 220 million pounds are lost out. It can be used for better causes as it is a lot of money and can be nearly 80 times more in poor countries.
Every charity everywhere, shut down in an instant. Nice. Well done, jiina.
Posted by Ben @ August 16th, 2010 6:10 pm. Filed under: Batshit Mental Rants,Clearly You've Thought This Through,I Am A Brain!,I Sure Hope There's No Way This Can Be Misinterpreted.,I'm serious!,Lord Knows I Ask Not For Myself,Really REALLY Bad Ideas,Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children? — Tags: SAFARI —
on August 15, 2010 at 03:35PM
We’ve lost our way with the issue of child pornography and too many costly resources are being used in trying to convict those who download these pictures instead of those who actually produce them in the first place.
In many cases, innocent people are also being convicted of downloading child pornography when they may not have been responsible for doing so.
Let’s remember it’s child abuse we need to stop; downloading indecent images does not directly create victims, but producing the images in the first place does, so we need to get rid of the current pictures and stop the creation of new ones.
So here’s the solution:
- Repeal the law which criminalises the downloading of indecent images of children to allow such downloads on the strict conditions that:
- Any images downloaded are reported on an official Government web site (the person would report details like the web address, file sharing site, FTP location, etc. as well as details of what the photos were.)
- Such reports must be made within 24 hours of downloading (to prevent paedophiles just downloading and retaining pictures and claiming months later that it was their intention to report them)
- The pictures must not be distributed to anyone else.
- All images must be deleted either as soon as they’ve been reported, or (depending on MP’s preferences when changing the law) kept only until they are officially informed that they can be removed (this may be necessary as technically the pictures would be evidence and deleting them could be classed as destruction of evidence).
- Set up the necessary Government Web site to enable people to report pictures found. It would be important that it could handle the demand because many people are quite rightly strongly against child pornography and will probably inundate the web site with reports.
- Allow all adults to take part. It’s important to include those already convicted of sexual crimes because it means those who currently break the law by downloading such pictures and, therefore, who know where they are, could actually use their knowledge to help bring about the elimination of child pornography on the Internet.
Once evidence has been obtained by the Government web site, it could be passed to the police and Internet experts who will be able to use the information to track down the pictures on the web and either have the sites closed (and owners prosecuted) or, where the UK authorities have no legal right to do so (on foreign web sites, for example) to have them blocked to UK Internet users.
The idea could be suggested to other EU Member States and, indeed, outside the EU, and if rolled out around the world, it could eliminate child pornography on the internet for good as anyone even considering making such photographs available would not do so as anyone requesting copies from them may well be doing so for the sole purpose of reporting them using the new system.
The UK Government could even make the reporting web site available to the rest of the world, charging a small fee to each Government to mean the entire system would be self-funding. (Foreign reports would simply be forwarded to the appropriate Government by the UK site.)
If producing indecent images is no longer profitable then far fewer children will be abused to create such pictures.
Finally, one has to accept that unfortunately there are (and will probably always be) paedophiles in the world. It’s a sexual preference, which is not illegal in itself but can LEAD to the law being broken if a child is abused as a result. We therefore suggest that the Government also repeals the law criminalising PSEUDO (i.e. those created by computer or drawn where no child is actually abused) indecent images of children. This would mean paedophiles who might otherwise feel the need to actually abuse a child, could turn to pseudo images instead, thus protecting more children.
Why the contribution is important
This idea will massively reduce, and probably eliminate child pornography on the Internet. It would likely only take a few months as thousands of (unpaid!) members of the public will want to assist and the sheer volume of evidence provided as a result will mean the police’s job will be easy. (It could then remain in place to reduce the changes that new photos will be produced.)
Child abuse will be dramatically reduced as the market for indecent images will be shattered.
People will finally feel they are actually able to contribute to the reduction in crime against children.
The idea that the Government should ALLOW people to download illegal images might sound odd at first but it’s important to remember the goal: to stop children being abused.
Just think: By the end of 2010, The UK Government, with help from the people they represent, could have virtually wiped out a massive amount of child abuse.
It’s batshit insane, it’s based on logical fallacies, and it isn’t particularly grounded in reality. In short, the perfect petition.
Posted by Ben @ August 16th, 2010 5:56 pm. Filed under: Anything I Want Is A Human Right,Clearly You've Thought This Through,FREEDOM!!,I'm serious!,Lord Knows I Ask Not For Myself,Thank You For Coming -- It's Been Very Useful,That's SO UNFAIR! I HATE YOU! — Tags: rgriffin —
Sometimes, laws are confusing. People get confused! The best way to alleviate the confusion? Why, get rid of the confusing laws, of course! Like this one:
on August 16, 2010 at 03:08PM
I love this guy already.
I would like a change or a full repeal of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005. Part of this act involved designating sites by order of Secretary of State, such as nuclear power stations, which, if trespassed, incurred servere penalties.
In a one-man protest against the way the government was handling the economy prior to the G8 meetings of May 2009, I climbed over the railings into the front lawn of the Houses of Parliament following a peaceful march through the city. I sat peacefully on the lawn and when approached, stated “This is the people’s parliament, and I am one of the people”.
I was arrested and eventually cautioned for “Trespass on sites designated by order of Secretary of State. Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 S.128.”
My point is this: how can sitting on the lawn of my own government’s meeting place be as bad as breaking into a nuclear power station? Clearly, making a stand for democracy should not be penalised in such a way. Please amend or repeal the law. Thank you.
Why the contribution is important
I believe my idea is important as it will remove an unnecessary restriction on the valid right to protest by the people of Britain.
Right. So… you don’t see a problem with trespassing on property occupied by people who run the country? Okay. Just checking.
Posted by Ben @ July 14th, 2010 8:58 pm. Filed under: Abolish This!,Anything I Want Is A Human Right,Batshit Mental Rants,Clearly You've Thought This Through,Don't Worry About What THEY Want,Duplicate Petitions,Hanging's Too Good For 'Em!,Is Research The Same Thing As Making Shit Up? Good.,Please State The Nature of the Medical Emergency,Sexism,Stand Back! I'm Going To Try SCIENCE!,Stop Spending My Money On Things I Don't Understand.,Unreasonable Demands,What A Dick,Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children?,You Know - We Haven't Banned Anything Lately. — Tags: AndyCC, ngreer —
Abortion. Touchy subject. Touchy enough for at least two petitions on YourFreedom.
on July 03, 2010 at 01:01AM
Someone decides to have sex, they should live with the concequences. Abortion should be banned for all social economic reasons.
Life is a sacred thing, whether you believe it is from God or not, people these days think that you just pop-out of the womb on the day you are born, but it starts before that within the womb.
If people disagree with banning Abortion for social economic reasons, could they please explain why it is differnt to killing a 5 year old because they are not an Adult yet?
Abortion is just legalised mass murder, wrapped up to make everyone feel good about it.
Why the contribution is important
Why should an innocent unborn child be murdered simply because of a “bad” choice to have sex?
Why should the taxpayer pay for this? And for the clumsy decisions of others not to use protection?
on July 06, 2010 at 11:51PM
Why the contribution is important
The right to life is a fundamental human right. The unborn are human. At the moment of conception they become, by any reasonable definition, human. They are genetically members of the species homo sapiens, and between that moment and birth, there is no clear dividing line when a change occurs. If there is no clear dividing line, then no change occurs (if it is illegal to kill at some precise moment and not before, that must be because a significant change occurs at that moment).
It follows that to kill the unborn is murder, and the clear denial of that unborn child’s right to life. We will not execute murderers and rapists because of this principle, but we will inflict a particularly brutal killing on defenceless, innocent children. This is unnacceptable in any society that aspires to be civilised.
let’s ignore all of the bollocks pseudo-science and half-arsed presumptions in these petitions and jump to the crux of the matter: making abortion illegal.
What about where protection is used? What about rape? What about incest rape? What about instances where the baby won’t survive childbirth? What about instances where the mother won’t survive childbirth? What about where the baby will be born without a brain? Or, rather simply, what if the woman simply isn’t ready to be a mother? It’s her body, her choice, and she shouldn’t be forced into motherhood against her will, be it because she was attacked in the park or because she just doesn’t want to have kids.
Even taking all of these variables out of the picture, making abortion illegal isn’t going to help. The women that want abortions are still going to find ways of getting them, being it going abroad to somewhere else in Europe where it’s still legal. Or, if that’s not an option, they’ll seek out a “back alley abortion” where statistics show they will, in fact, wind up dead.
So, long story short, it seems AndyCC and ngreer hate women, they don’t think a woman is entitled to ownership of her own uterus.
Posted by Andrew @ July 12th, 2010 11:42 pm. Filed under: "Making Britain Great Again",Batshit Mental Rants,Can't someone else pay the VAT?,Clearly You've Thought This Through,I AM TALKING!,It's Just A Little Request...,spelin an grammer,Thank You For Coming -- It's Been Very Useful,We Petition The PM To Climb This Wall Of Text —
Well. A day or two ago I discovered the Secret Fourth Category: “how can we rethink public services to deliver more for less”. Although presumably it wasn’t all that secret because there are already eleven fucking thousand “ideas” on it.
Long story short: you’re getting another big bumper post.
by LIFETANK on July 06, 2010 at 01:52PM
THE GEORGE TAX
Current taxation systems throughout the world were developed for a physical currency transaction, this means it is a tax system that can easily be avoided and is inherently corrupt in that the richest can avoid tax through highly paid Lawyers and Accountants finding loopholes in the system, and cash only business can avoid tax by not declaring transactions.
A digital age taxation system would allow the Government to collect tax electronically at a centralised point of transaction, and would also allow the government to deploy algorithms to calculate a ‘Real Time’ tax rate which could adjust dynamically to the expenditure requirements of government, rather than the government being forced to go cap in hand to the bond markets or raise taxation retrospectively on budget day.
IMPLEMENTING THE GEARGE TAX
The starting point for a digital age taxation system would be to abolish the entire UK taxation and cash transaction system and start from scratch.
Algorithms would need to be formulated (A.) to determine the value of all financial transactions carried out in the UK and between the UK and Overseas and (B.) Projected governmental expenditure for the year calculated in real time.
To collect THE GEORGE TAX, centralised electronic transaction hubs would be built and developed throughout the UK and each of these would be connected in a network to each other and to a master hub connected to the banks where tax is collected as a percentage of each transaction passing through the hub.
THE GEORGE TAX is essentially a transaction tax. Whenever a financial transaction is carried out, a percentage of that transaction is taken as a tax, the tax percentage is calculated in ‘Real Time’ and would be variable by miniscule percentage movements using an algorithm calculating government spending requirements for the tax year against projected UK financial transactions for the tax year.
All financial transactions including share dealing, bank to bank transfers etc.. would have to pass through the hubs by law, with serious penalties for non compliance.
For small transactions, pre paid cash cards containing say £10 in value could be purchased ‘TAX PAID’ at shops and supermarkets etc.. these could then be used to pay for small purchases in store and at temporary outlets and outdoor events etc. where terminal connections to the centralised transaction hubs cant be made.
The cards could possibly be top up cards or disposable depending on security issues, but this would negate the need for cash in today’s society, it would also mean that transactions could be carried out without a need for a connection to the main hubs or to a power source as payment tills could be battery or solar powered and would not need a phone line, all transactions taken through these cards would then be uploaded at a later date through a connected terminal to the main transaction hubs.
The benefits of THE GEORGE TAX, are that it is a simple one tax system, it can be collected at the time of transaction, it will reduce business costs significantly, would increase tax collection to near 100%, would be 100% fair, would reduce government expenditure significantly, and would reduce the overall tax burden on the individual significantly, cutting red tape and tax loop holes to pretty much zero.
THE GEORGE TAX is a progressive digital age tax system, that is simple and effective, it just needs a progressive and visionary government to implement it in its simplest form.
The basic rule is to keep it very simple, tax the transaction at a single real time rate, a one tax system.
I can envisage an extremely low tax rate of a percentage of 1% using THE GEORGE TAX , every single financial transaction in the UK and between the UK and Overseas would be taxed at the time of transaction, this amounts to a staggeringly huge sum of money available to be taxed against.
Because the tax is a transaction tax, both sides of the transaction are taxed, therefore a transaction of £1.00 is actually worth £2.00 for taxable purposes.
The benefits to society and the UK economy would be immeasurable!
THE GEORGE TAX – Should be this governments legacy to this great nation, i give my idea for FREE, in the hope that somebody with the vision of progress will take it forward.
Why call it the THE GEORGE TAX?
Well its my last name, its my idea, so why not!
Why is this idea important?
My idea will revolutionise this country, will increase profitability, increase productivity, decrease red tape, will reduce individual taxation, will simplify the tax system, will make tax fair for all, will allow great britain to become a global financial power again, will increases competitiveness, will encourage entrepreneurs and business.
Do i really need to go on ?????, anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the massive positive consequences that THE GEORGE TAX would bring to the table.
Lets get on with it, our children depend on it!
Posted by Ben @ July 12th, 2010 4:46 pm. Filed under: Clearly You've Thought This Through,Everyone Stop What You're Doing Because You're Mildly Inconveniencing Me,spelin an grammer,What A Dick — Tags: shenden —
on July 01, 2010 at 07:26AM
Scrap the whole lot. Its a lot a red tape which does nothing to give any of us any protection.
I am so fed up with having to go through endless questions to check my identify every time I call anyone..(with the exception of banking who should have their own security protocols)
Why the contribution is important
Reduces buracracy and increased efficiency
Great. Lovely. Everyone would be able to call up utilities, cable providers, phone companies and what-have-you and say that they’re the customer but really they’re not, leading to situations where, for example, an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend calls their ex’s phone company and asks to close the account down. But hey, you don’t get asked security questions to confirm your identity anymore. Possible identity fraud is a small price to pay for ease of use, am I right Shenden?
on July 01, 2010 at 08:14AM
I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.
Why the contribution is important
Standing at football games is something that thousands of football fans feel passionately about, and in this day and age can be done in a safe manor. i.e the safe standing format by where each terrace has a barrier to prevent any kind of crush.
I’ve never seen someone so desperate to stand up for 90 solid minutes in my life. Also considering how larey the average British football fan can become do you really think it’s wise to put them in a position where other idiots could push them over or hurt them?
Also, “in a safe manor”? Ooh, so close.
stop the telephone companies from charging the consumers for the issueing their paper telephone bills to the tune of £1.50 per month.by James Magill (rejected)At the moment everybody gets charge by the telephone companies if they have to issue a ‘Paper Bill’ but if you have a Computer and are connected to the Internet you can get this bill on line at no charge. What about the 1000s who have not got a Computer, eg our Senior Citizens and those of us who are unemployed to mention a few?
They get charged the £1.50 paper bill fee. Are you not paying attention?
Fantastic URL on this one. “Bad pirates”. Like it’s possible to get kidnapped by good pirates.
allow citizens to contribute to a charity fund to raise the ransom to free Paul and Rachel Chandler.by Dean Seabrook (rejected)Your government won’t pay the ransom – I understand you’d endanger more people by setting a precedent, but this poor couple must be going through Hell. Allow people to donate a fiver, let’s see how much we can raise and maybe get them home. If I had the technical expertise to set up a charity website enabled for donations myself I would do it, but alas, I do not, and I’m not a registered charity myself. Your government should create this website.
Wouldn’t that, erm, endanger more people by setting a precedent?