||This Act banned perfectly legitimate tools. Both 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives' utilize their method of releasing a blade to ensure safe operation when restricted to using one hand, the later notably being exclusively manufactured for parachute applications. The way in which a folding knife folds has no bearing on its lethality.
||This Act banned perfectly legitimate tools. Both 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives' utilize their method of releasing a blade to ensure safe operation when restricted to using one hand <ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYguo9ES46U</ref>, the later notably being exclusively manufactured for parachute applications. <ref>http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4578586_what-gravity-knife.html</ref> The way in which a folding knife folds has no bearing on its lethality.
||
||
|}
|}
Revision as of 11:19, 13 May 2010
The Great Repeal Bill is intended to abolish many restrictive laws and regulations believed to hamper individual freedoms, society, and businesses in the United Kingdom [1]. Members of the public are able to add to the list of laws and rules to be repealed in the draft of the Bill below. You are also highly encouraged to join the debate about why certain legislation should be included (or excluded) from the Great Repeal Bill.
This experiment in direct democracy allows ordinary citizens to have a direct say in drafting of legislation, which is believed to be the first of its kind [2].
First proposed by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan in their book, The Plan: 12 months to renew Britain, The Great Repeal Bill is as much an effort in deregulation as it is an initiative in open politics and a move towards direct democracy. There is currently no right of popular initiative in Britain to ensure that popular legislative measures are debated and voted on in the British Parliament[2]. Nor is there at this time a right of referendum. However, working with the political system as it is today, we hope to presented to Parliament the draft Bill as a Private Members Bill, or ultimately as a government Bill.
The Bill is to be drafted in collaboration with ordinary citizens drawing upon the collaborative approach a wiki editing model provides. This experimental approach hopes to provide insight into public opinion, examine if a case for popular legislative initiative using the wiki approach can be made, and provide a resource for public policy research. The initiative originally began on the Blog site ConservativeHome in June 2008[3].
A parallel effort is being made on a private, "guarded" wiki at ourlaw.wikispaces.com. Part of the outcome that may be sought is to see the difference between the results of an open vs. closed environment. Both wikis are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so content may be ported in either direction where appropriate.
Contributing
Please be specific when adding suggestions for laws to scrap (not new laws, the clue lies in the title - Great Repeal Bill). The table headings for each sections is indicative of what suggestions should include:
Clause - A numbering which should be incremented if adding a new proposal.
Legislation - Ideally the short form title and year for specific Primary legislation (typically the Act of Parliament), or title, year and sequence number for secondary legislation(typically Statutory instruments or Regulations) which contains the laws, regulations or provisions to be repealed. If you are able to assist by clarifying the title in existing proposals, please do so.
Extent of repeal - The specific section or provisions of the law that should be repealed. If you are able to assist other contributors by making explicit the specific section a proposal refers to, please do so.
Reasoning - A brief explanation or justification as to why the bill should be concerned with repealing the law.
Do not delete without consensus
Please do NOT simply delete proposals from this page. Debate them instead.
Preamble
An Act to repeal Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation that are detrimental to the quality of life and freedom of British citizens to choose how they wish to live their lives; and for connected purposes.
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title
(1) This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(2) An amendment or repeal contained in this Act has the same extent as the Act or instrument or relevant part of the Act or instrument to which the amendment or repeal relates (ignoring extent by virtue of an Order in Council).
(3) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of six months beginning from the date of Royal Assent. (This provision will give time for public and private sector organisations to adjust to the many reforms in this Act)
(4) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.
(5) An order under subsection (4) is to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) This Act may be cited as the Freedom Act/Great Act of Repeal, Deregulation, Abolition and Reform. (Choose which one to include as appropriate)
Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 Paragraphs 6 and 9 of Schedule 2[5]
These sections contain laws which burden employees and entrepreneurs.
ii
Weights and Measures Act 1985[6] Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/659)
Relevant sections, including various secondary legislation
This Act requires retailers to use certain weights and measurements
I disagree about revocation. There has been regulation since the Magna Carta to ensure buyers and sellers are trading on equal terms.
[7].
Having an internationally traceable system of weighing and measuring for trade use is a requirement of WTO membership, it needs simplification and more deregulation, not outright repeal. Imperial Measurements can be made traceable to international metric standards and used quite legally in the UK subject to appropraite legislation. In fact 'imperial' does not exist, it is all defined by metric standards. Just because something says it weighs a 'kilogram' doesn't mean that it does. The only thing in the world that actually weighs a kilogram is the primary standard kilogram in Paris, all mass measurements need to be traceable back to it to have any intergrity.
Adding: "1) pricing information shall be provided in at least one customary or recognised measure for all types of items; 2) within a business that sells to consumers, readily comparable unit prices shall be clearly displayed" would avoid any need to specify further. If some unusual unit (or multiple types of unit) are traditional or common in some contexts, or someone wants to use a normal and a "strange" measure, this would allow their fair usage and also ensure purchasers can make fair pricing comparisons.
This Act requires Home Information Packs to be used. The effect is to impose an additional cost on house purchasers and a VAT revenue for the state. The EU requirement for an energy survey could be met without the overhead of a full HIP.
iv
European Works Council Directive (94/45/EC) European Social Chapter
An opinion by a business that a law is a burden is not sufficient to make that law wrong. The employee must often be empowered to avoid the business taking advantage of the relationship. The requirement should not be to remove a burden, but to keep it proportional to the problem and appropriate to the circumstances.
v
Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551) and 2002 (SI 2002/2035)[11][12]
The entire Regulations
These contain laws which make it less likely that businesses are able to hire part-time workers. In the statutory instrument of 2002, Alan Johnson extends the categories of people to whom these regulations apply by removing an exemption. (this is presumably a sop to union dislike of contract labour). It is possible that simply reinstating the missing paragraphs by statutory instrument would meet the objective .
vi
The Companies Act 1985 (Operating and Financial Review and Directors' Report etc.) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1011) [13]
The entire Regulations
Specify what aspect of the regulations you find objectionable. Is it the environmental audit or the fact that companies have to mke an annual report? Just naming the regulations will not do.
vii
Money Laundering Regulations
SI 2001/1819 SI 2001/3641 SI 2003/171 SI 2003/3075 SI 2006/308 SI 2006/1070 SI 2007/2157 SI 2007/3299
Sections of the secondary legislations enacted over the past decade.
Costs people 20 times more money to enforce than people get paid for enforcing it [factual?]. citing "a 75-country study found that regulations usually cost a country twenty times more than they cost the government (see publications by Djankov,
There may well be Health and Safety regulations which are disproportionate. There is, also, however, a large problem with insufficiently trained officials taking an over-cautious view and blaming regulations for their lack of research. Before removing regulations, action should be taken to determine whether the fault lies with the regulations or with poor implementation. There should be a requirement that any change made in order to satisfy such regulations should quote the regulation involved and allow for an appeal.
It may be sensible to re-examine the scope of the Act, however. Its framers were, I think, more concerned with industrial accidents and safety on construction sites than they were with the relatively benign office environments in which many of us work, and its extension and intrusion into other areas is the main source of problems. For instance, there are now training courses for using ladders. Far too often this legislation is now used as a basis for compensation claims and there is too little personal responsibility. Whether that is a problem that needs addressing in the legislation or not is another question, and whether that should be done as part of this Bill is also a good question, but it should be considered.
ix
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) [15]
The entire Order
x
Finance Act 2000 (IR35)[16] Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/727)
The relevant sections
Costs small businesses time and money, adds extra charges for contractors, and also pushed many offshore. It has raised a mere £9.2m over 6 years [17] and at most raised 35 million. [18]
We all know that it has failed. It was only brought in because the predecessor legislation, the Financial Services Act 1986 [20], although working well, had been introduced by the previous Conservative government. Bring it back!
xiii
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
The entire Act
Prevents personal injury liability disclaimers from being legally binding.
The law has traditionally said that liability for death and injury is too serious to be excluded "as a norm". The aim of this clause is that you cannot just point to the contract and say "we're not liable even if negligent" if your mistake causes death or injury. This is in effect a "public policy" issue; it's probably a good thing that it's prevented from exclusion and disclaimer.
xv
Town & Country Planning Act 1947
The entire Act and its subsequent amendments
Increases housing costs which have gone up 4 times faster than the RPI over the last century (see #90) because planning drove up costs and prevents innovation. People are entitled to housing that is as good, modern, and inexpensive as the market can produce. National park rules should allow land there to stay undeveloped.Planning laws distort the market for land and lead to over investment by UK citizens in property at the expense of commerce.
Replace with a National Sales Tax on all non-essential items. Implemented on a local basis as well to encourage competition between different areas. People who spend more on non-essential items would pay more which is a fairer tax. This could vastly reduce national and local government revenue from a decrease in the tax rate. This may also attract foreigners to move to the UK which could increase tax collected. See the Fair Tax currently being debated in the U.S. for further insights. [22][23]
xvii
Climate Change Act 2008
The entire Act
Costs individual households and businesses billions of pounds when the UK is estimated to be responsible for only 2% of worldwide carbon emissions and man made climate change is only a hypothesis[factual?] and not an established fact.
Absolute certainty is impossible in climatological science as it is in everything else (up to and including mathematics). Nevertheless, the IPCC's last assessment report states: 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.'[24]
xviii
The Leasehold Reform Act 1967
The entire Act
Prevents people and businesses from having the right to recover possession of properties after expiration of a lease.
xix
Race Relations Amendment Act 2000
The entire Act
In creating a requirement to promote "race equality" and demonstrate that procedures to prevent racial discrimination are in place this Act transforms what ought to be matters of conscience into an exercise in burdensome bureaucracy. Has engendered among the ethnic majority both sometimes justifiable resentment and a feeling that anyone from outside their number succeeding in their chosen sphere is doing so only because of their minority status, which is quite often wholly unfair. Has created the atmosphere which allowed the Ali Dizaei debacle in the Metropolitan Police to take place and done nothing to promote feelings of pan-racial "community".
xx
Race Relations Act 1976
The entire Act
Overrode the eminently sensible Race Relations Act 1965 which confined itself solely to the public sphere more or less in its entirety. The 1976 act exacerbates, rather than mitigates, racial tensions in society
Intrudes unacceptably into areas which are more properly matters for personal conscience and public opprobrium to deal with. Actually damaged race relations in the United Kingdom in a way the far milder and more appropriate Race Relations Act 1965 did not in that it encouraged members of ethnic minorities who might previously have only suspected prejudicial treatment to band together into "communities" and go hunting for it, setting themselves against the native (for lack of a better term) population. Separation from the wider community was incentivised as unintegrated "communities" regarded as homogenous by outsiders became better able to campaign for preferential treatment and increased "group rights" than the individual who regarded himself as British first. As well as ghettoising ethnic minorities, all this has an equally unwelcome effect on member of the ethnic minority, who have been taught to resent and fear (particulary with regard to potential litigation) members of ethnic minorities even where their history in Britain goes back three or four generations.
xxii
Insolvency Act 1986
S214
Section 214 of the act creates personal liability for a company director in respect of wrongful trading. It is suggested that the creation of such liability in instances described by the section often results in small business directors being held personally liable for honest mistakes often to the extent of causing personal bankruptcy. The law against fraud and deliberate wrongdoing must be a harsh deterrent, however, S214 deals not with fraud but instead creates an onerous burden of expectation on the average entrepeneur's ability to predict the future and in doing so fosters a business culture of risk aversion and premature liqudation of potentially viable businesses.
xxiii
Digital Economy Act 2010
The entire Act
This Act was rushed through Parliament during the wash-up period before the 2010 General Election and was not properly debated and analysed.
xxiv
Finance Act 2008
Section 58, subsection (4)
This section of the 2008 Finance Act is an apparently innocuous piece of legislation that closes a tax loophole in the Dual Taxation Treaty between the UK and the Isle of Man. The referenced clause however reads : "(4) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) are treated as always having had effect." This effectively renders the closure retrospective, making income that was not previously taxable subject to full income tax. This is unprecendented and, as well as being widely condemned by such bodies as the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Joint Committee of Human Rights, exposes several thousand freelance workers to huge tax demands. Many of these people will be made bankrupt by this clause, most of them ordinary people with families who risk losing their homes. During the committee stage of the Finance Act, both the Lib Dems and Conservatives opposed the retrospective element of this bill, tabling amendments to close the loophole but with only prospective effect. These amendments were only defeated by Labour forcing the clause through by exercising their committee majority.
It is under this legislation that the Vetting and Barring Scheme operates which will require 11 million adults[26] to submit themselves to vetting at great expense and creating another barrier[26] to people volunteering to help out in their communities.
This legislation created the Criminal Records Bureau. It cannot and does not provide any guarantees about whether people will actually be safe around children, but it has helped to create an atmosphere of suspicion.[28] Over 2000 people[29] have found themselves wrongly labeled as criminals by and and the result of this legislation has been to create a shortage of adult volunteers[26]. In addition to this the requirement for CRB checks which have effectively become a tax on volunteering[factual?].
xxvii
Sunday Trading Act 1994
relevant sections
There are good social reasons for restricting the number of hours or days a person should work, but it is not the place of the government to mandate a given day of the week for it. (Jewish shops? Muslim shops? Shop workers of no strong religious belief?) To the extent this protects shop workers from abuse, update employment law to ensure a shop worker's employment must allow for a regular one day a week off for (or in lieu of) religious belief. To the extent it protects the British culture, the established religion, or any other social structure, it is clear that the population as a whole don't feel that forcing shops to close on a given day is an issue worthy of enforcement in this day and age. Its value seems to be more symbolic in a country where most people are happy to drive, shop, or do DIY on a Sunday - it's almost a reminder of something. But symbolics make poor legislation.
A hugely expensive and unwanted identity scheme that is a threat to the liberty and privacy of British Citizens, this legislation is being pushed through to further engorge the governments desire for continuing its aspiration for rapid growth of the database state and intrusion into peoples lives.
The Act is unclear [36] it has been declared unenforceable in court [37] - and it was introduced not for policy reasons but to placate government backbenchers.[38]
This act redefined the definition of charity that had existed satisfactorily since 1661. It was mainly introduced to attack 'public schools' which claim tax benefit for the chaitable purpose of providing education.
xi.
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
This Act of the Parliament created an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion.[45]
xii.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Part 5, Section 63
This makes the possession of 'extreme' types of 'pornography' a criminal offence, regardless of the reason for that possession, and where the definition of 'pornography' is so sweeping as to amount to censorship.
The ability of the Home Secretary to place control orders upon people.This ineffective measure would not be required if the adherance to the 'Human rights act' was repealed.[47]
This law among other things has given the ability for 'respected' community figures such as Nightclub Bouncers, Parking Attendants et al. to issue on-the-spot fines for anti-social behaviour. They also have access to the PNC (Police National Computer). It also allows for seizure of vehicles (S.59) despite the 1689 Bill of Rights specifically outlawing forfeiture before conviction[49][50]
This enables ministers to sign into law extraordinarily draconian edicts without due debate and consultation.
xxi.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008[52]
The entire Order
Inhibits people from pursuing their peaceful hobbies in order to combat a non-existant threat. The Home Office claimed in enacting the order that a consultation had demonstrated strong support for their actions, despite the fact that 85% of those consulted had opposed a ban on replica swords and 56% had opposed a ban on any other weapons.[53]
xxii.
Health Act 2006
Chapter 1
This is the legislation that prevents you smoking in a public place, such as a company car. It has had a huge negative impact on many pubs across the country[54], particularly since the recession began. An alternative approach would be to allow individual pubs to regulate smoking perhaps by setting aside designated smoking and non-smoking areas.
xxiii.
The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
A violation of the principle of free association, and led to the closure of those adoption agencies (e.g. Catholic) unwilling to place children with same-sex couples.
xxiv.
Arbitration Act 2006
Gives the judgements of Sharia courts recognition in law[factual?]
...actually, it gives any civil arbitration method *agreed to by both parties* force in civil cases and equity only. Since the victim in criminal cases is the state, and the state has a duty to prosecute crimes under law, it cannot apply here.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 [59]
The entire Act
It is owners who are best placed to look after their property. This Act enables councils to prosecute people for crimes committed by previous owners and to be jailed for that.
This Act permits extended opening hours of licensed premises in a misguided scheme to introduce perceived European drinking habits to the UK. Instead incidents of violence and public disorder have extended into the early morning and has dramatically declined the standard of life of those in around licensed locations. The law also imposes restrictions on live music and entertainment which have inadvertently increased costs and legal limitations on voluntary and small social organisations[factual?]. It also contains the absurd requirement that businesses that sell alcoholic drinks by mail order should have a premises licence for premises that customers never visit.
Prohibiting what people can do with their own land (as the Act states) is an infringement of their liberty to make use of their property. By giving the police the power to disperse any group (even if they have the land owners permission) this is an infringement of the right to free association.
Farewell, Gary McKinnon. An unpleasantly one-sided deal that discriminates against British subjects. The Americans have consistently declined to uphold their side of the bargain; the arrangement enjoys no reciprocity nor prospect of same[66]The Act should therefore be abolished.
xxxvii(a).
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and all amendments thereto, also withdrawal from all treaties relating to the control of drugs.
The entire Act
For interfering with peoples right to find happiness in their own way, for promulgating the myth that your body and person belong to the state, for weakening the public mind by nannying people instead of allowing them to shoulder their own responsibilities and make their own choices. Drug prohibition is extremely expensive (policing, criminal justice, prisons), criminalises large segments of the population, makes quality control impossible, makes criminals rich while driving addicts to crime by inflating prices, is hugely hypocritical with respect to the relative dangers of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and deprives the government of tax revenue which could be spent on treatment - all while utterly and miserably failing in its primary purpose of preventing drug use. For example, the UK has higher rates of cannabis usage than the Holland, despite Dutch decriminalisation.[67]
xxxvii(b).
Drugs Act 2005
Section 21
Included as an "add-on" a worthless restriction on natural psylocybin mushrooms, a low risk item with almost no social issues and less toxic than aspirin, which attracted exceptionally heavy criticism indeed from the House of Commons Select Committee's inquiry[68] for its lack of basis:
"Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the ACMD [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs], told us 'I have no idea what was going through the minds of the group who put it in Class A...It is there because it is there'. The Home Office has admitted that it has never conducted any research into psilocin use and that there is 'no clear evidence of a link between psilocin use and acquisitive or other crime'... the ACMD was not given the chance to consider the evidence properly before responding... the Home Office received no submissions in favour of the clarification of the law in respect of magic mushrooms prior to the Drugs Act 2005...and four submissions against... [W]e encountered a widespread view that the Class A status of magic mushrooms does not reflect the harms associated with their misuse. The RAND report concluded that the Government’s decision 'was not based on scientific evidence', noting that 'the positioning of them in Class A does not seem to reflect any scientific evidence...' The lethal dose for humans is about one’s own body weight in mushrooms... Professor Blakemore was also of the view that 'if one could look at all the evidence for harm available now, including social harms, one would say [the classification of magic mushrooms] is wrong'... The Government’s own 'Talk to Frank' drug information website states... 'not addictive in any way'... The drugs charity Release told us that 'There was little transparency as to the reasoning behind this policy', describing it as 'an unacceptable situation'... [an MP] stated 'The policy appears to have been driven by something other than evidence'... striking lack of evidence to suggest that the Class A status...was merited on the basis of the harm associated with their misuse."
Committee testimony stated "My feeling was that the whole business was rushed through in 2005 because the election was coming and the Bill had to be on the statute book but, more importantly, because there were two court cases outstanding where the government were trying to prosecute shopkeepers."
In a clinical sense, these are almost universally agreed to be non-addictive, not related to a crime increase, low or no potential for abuse,[69] less toxic than asprin,[70] and associated primarily with positive spiritual experience in clinically reported double-blind tests.[71][72]
xxxviii.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Section 63 and related clauses
Creates an offence for possessing so called 'extreme pornography' that can be created using entirely legal means and with fully consenting adult participants[73][74][75], making possession essentially a 'thought crime' rather than a crime involving a real act of violence or abuse. Possession of images are criminalised whether or not participants consented, and it applies to fictional and staged acts. It covers entirely private material that is not published. BBFC classified works are exempt, yet a clip from such a film can still be illegal. The law has been criticised by academics[76], who stated "The evidence presented in the Rapid Evidence Assessment is extremely poor, based on contested findings and accumulated results. It is one-sided and simply ignores the considerable research tradition into "extreme" (be they violent or sexually explicit) materials within the UK's Humanities and Social Sciences." The vagueness of the law has meant that the police have already used it in a case even broader than the original intent[77][78]. The section should either be abolished or carefully amended so that the definition of illegal pornography satisfies the liberal tests of consent and direct harm (e.g., possible amendments). Legal opinion from Andrew Murray
We don't need this law. As well as criminalising the recording of one's own legal actions, the recording of ones friends or partners' legal actions, and the possession of material produced by friends of their legal actions, there's considerable research that questions the supposed connection in the first place.
This Act of introduced rights for children, without also conferring any responsibilities. It is probably the single biggest cause of social breakdown in Britain, since it has made it almost impossible for any adult to discipline or even criticise a child without fear of legal redress[factual?]. It also created the Child Support Agency (CSA), since dissolved. Repeal the entire act and then start over again, using our brains and experience of what happens when you give power to children and take it away from adults.
These sections redefine an adult over the age of consent as a child, and it includes all images even if they were not of any real people (e.g. cartoons and CGI) and are purely imaginary.[82][83] The law is far broader than simply images that would be intended for pedophiles - "child" is defined to include those appearing to be 17 or 18, as well as images of adults, where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a person under the age of 18. As with Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (see above), BBFC classified works are exempt, but a clip from such a work can still be illegal. The definitions include the possibility of criminalising a cartoon image where a fully clothed 17 year old is shown in the background of a scene where adults are depicted having sex. The definitions could cover graphic novels such as Lost Girls and Watchmen[84]. Mainstream TV such as South Park's Proper Condom Use depict cartoon scenes of children in sexual acts. The law was criticised in Committee debates by Conservative and Lib Dem MPs[85]. Similar laws in other countries have resulted in people being convicted for joke cartoon images[86].
Inhibits people from pursuing their peaceful hobbies by imposing unreasonable restrictions on replica firearms.
xliii.
Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations (SI 2000 No 2699) [88]
The whole Regulations
Allows businesses and government departments to intercept personal communications on their networks without consent. This is now the practice of schools as well.[factual?]
xliv
The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997
The entire Act
This was a emotionally driven piece of law driven by a tabloid media campaign, and which overruled the recommendations of the government's own inquiry (which concluded that the Dunblane shootings were down to a failure of Policing and law enforcement). To that end firearms law required no new restrictions. This Act resulted in the outlawing of multiple Olympic disciplines from the UK, and has utterly failed in it's attempt to curtail crime involving firearms. In 12 years no other Western nation has followed the UK's "shining example" suggesting that the UK is too restrictive, not the other way around.
xlv.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
The entire Act
This was a poorly-thought out, knee-jerk response to a single incident which currently prevents a lawful, harmless form of recreation from being enjoyed by law-abiding sportspeople around the world. It has failed to curtail firearms related crime, which has risen exponentially since tht time. In 21 years no other Western nation has followed the UK's "shining example" suggesting that the UK is too restrictive, not the other way around.
xlvi.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Section 110
For the first time since 1829 this act has empowered any constable to arrest and detain any person without warrant for any offence, no matter how trivial. In all cases they may use reasonable force, may detain with handcuffs, and may require a DNA sample to be taken all of which is unjustified by the nature of the offences and could reduce the trust between the police and the public.
Section 139[89], change 'good reason', to 'reasonable excuse', or explicitly allow lock knives[90][91]
"The lock knife is bought by decorators, electricians, campers and a multitude of other members of the public who do not know that possession in a public place is illegal." [90] Lock knives are tools, safer to use than pen knives, and there is no reason for adults to be criminalised for possessing them. According to the reporting in The Independent[91], MPs intended the allowed 'folding knives' to include lock knives, it was judicial activism that made them illegal.
xlviii
Race Relations Amendment Act 2000
The entire Act
In creating a requirement to promote "race equality" and demonstrate that procedures to prevent racial discrimination are in place this Act transforms what ought to be matters of conscience into an exercise in burdensome bureaucracy. Has engendered among the ethnic majority both sometimes justifiable resentment and a feeling that anyone from outside their number succeeding in their chosen sphere is doing so only because of their minority status, which is quite often wholly unfair. Has created the atmosphere which allowed the Ali Dizaei debacle in the Metropolitan Police to take place and done nothing to promote feelings of pan-racial "community".
xlvix.
Race Relations Act 1976
The entire Act
Overrode the eminently sensible Race Relations Act 1965 which confined itself solely to the public sphere more or less in its entirety, and established a quango which positively thrives - indeed depends - upon interracial malcontent and stirring up suspicions of an omnipresent racism in the shape of the Commission for Racial Equality.
xlx.
Race Relations Act 1968
The entire Act
Intrudes unacceptably into areas which are more properly matters for personal conscience and public opprobrium to deal with. Actually damaged race relations in the United Kingdom in a way the far milder and more appropriate Race Relations Act 1965 did not in that it encouraged members of ethnic minorities who might previously have only suspected prejudicial treatment to band together into "communities" and go hunting for it, setting themselves against the native (for lack of a better term) population. Separation from the wider community was incentivised as unintegrated "communities" regarded as homogenous by outsiders became better able to campaign for preferential treatment and increased "group rights" than the individual who regards himself as simply British. As well as ghettoising ethnic minorities, all this has an equally unwelcome effect on members of the majority poplation, who have been taught to resent and fear (particulary as regards potential litigation) members of ethnic minorities even where their history in Britain goes back three or four generations.
xlxi.
Occupier's Liability Act 1984
The entire Act
Places unfair burden upon householders by making them liable for injury suffered by tresspassers on their property, leading to the famous case of a burglar who broke his leg falling through floorboards and successfully sued. Previous legislation more than adequately protected children, legitimate callers or people straying onto property by accident. This statute serves no useful purpose other than to increase public perception of the unfairness of the legal system.
xlxii.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Sections 8 (c) and (d)
These sections of the Act make it a crime for the occupier or manager of premises to permit someone to use cannabis on those premises. When around 10%[67] of all 15-64 year olds use cannabis at least once per year (and many much more often) it is unreasonable hold occupiers or managers criminally responsible for cannabis use on their premises.
Recheck this, it may have been removed by Drugs Act 2005 schedule 1 para.6 already??[92]
xlxiii.
Building Regulations
Part P
These sections make it convoluted or near-impossible for a homeowner to easily do even the most basic electrical DIY - replacing a plug or an electrical switch. While electrical safety is important, this is an unreasonable restriction, that a homeowner "may" be alowed (or may equally be forbidden) to do such basic DIY work in their home. Cost to homeowner of replacing facia of socket themselves - £10 (£4 socket, £6 time). Cost to do same in an area where notification "may" or "may not" be required depending on the council - extra admin, extra letters, a council employee, time needed on hold to my council asking if they consider the work "notifiable" or not - total cost for my time, councils time, form designers, data processors, council data storage, offices and facilities, council's internal audit and compliance time, administration clerks, possible electrician? £200? There has to be a way to greatly lighten this unnecessary item. (Current "easy read" regulations)
xlxiv.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 287
Requires courts to impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for possession of an illegal firearm. This has produced many notable injustices including the lengthy imprisonment of non-violent and otherwise law-abiding people who have come into possession or retained war trophies and antiques. [93]
xlxv.
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953
The relevant section(s)
Criminalizes carrying any object in public intended for the purpose of self-defence.
xlxvi.
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959
The relevant section(s)
This Act banned perfectly legitimate tools. Both 'flick knives' and 'gravity knives' utilize their method of releasing a blade to ensure safe operation when restricted to using one hand [94], the later notably being exclusively manufactured for parachute applications. [95] The way in which a folding knife folds has no bearing on its lethality.
This Act undermines democracy by transferring powers from the British Parliament to unelected functionaries abroad. It allows substantial changes in the law to be made without a vote in Parliament.
Disagree: Repealing this Act will in practice mean the UK leaving the EU.
This Act allows changes in legislation without reference to the House of Lords. At the very least, the 1949 Act should be repealed, because the 1911 Act was sufficient. The 1911 Act could also be amended so it could not be used to amend the constitution (the 1949 Act was passed by invoking the 1911 Act).
Agree: This Act should not be repealed but amended to disallow further constitutional Acts to be passed using it (such as the Parliament Act 1949). Section 7 should be repealed (see Septennial Act 1715 below).
This Act shortens the durations in which the House of Lords can delay legislation from three to two sessions/two years to one year. The Parliament Act 1911 already establishes the primacy of the House of Commons and this Act should be repealed (with relevant provisions to re-enact amended sections of the 1911 Act) to enhance scrutiny and prevent bad bills from being passed.
This Act lengthens the maximum duration of a Parliament from three to seven years, and was amended by the Parliament Act 1911 to change this to five years. It should be repealed and replaced with an Act establishing fixed-term Parliaments (currently being debated at either four or five years).
Gives force to the European Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon - may only be ratified if the Lisbon Treaty wins popular support in a national referendum)
Disagree: Now that the Treaty is in force, any referendum will be purely academic since there is nothing the UK Parliament can do about it short of leaving the EU.
To be repealed and replaced by proposed new Bill of Rights [103]. The proposed new Bill should be written only in accordance with, and in the spirit of, the existing Bill of Rights 1689 [104] and should create enhanced rights for established, ethnic Britons above and beyond any 'entry-level' rights which may be granted to foreign newcomers of unknown antecedence. In any event, this statue shall renounce and repudiate the use of cruel and unusual punishment against all persons whilst they remain within the environs of the United Kingdom. No person of any ethnic background shall suffer torture or any other form of cruel and unusual punishment whilst they remain within United Kingdom. The possibility that they may become so at risk if deported, however, is not a proper matter for United Kingdom courts which shall confine themselves to domestic considerations alone.
This Act increasingly excludes hereditary peers from the House of Lords thereby replacing the ancient concept of 'Noblesse oblige' - the "Obligation of the Nobels" with the inferior prospect of creating a peasant underclass reminiscent of the 14th Century, lorded over by a parasitical form of master or 'squire' with no inherent misgivings with which to reign-back on his newly-re-enabled exploitation of the poor.
Disagree: Getting rid of hereditary peers is one step in the direction of an elected and democratic House of Lords (or whatever it may be called after reforms) which will be much more accountable than a set of people only there by virtue of birth.
ix
The EU Data Retention Directive
The entire Directive
This directive mandates that all communcations traffic (Email, Web, Phone, Cellphone, SMS etc) messages be kept for up to 18 months by the service providers. At the moment, it just requires the logs, not the content of the communication, but this is merely because of technical limitations. This directive requires what should be forbidden: ISPs should not be permitted to retain any additional logging except the bare minimum required for billing. Government (or other officials) should not be allowed to impose retrospective surveillance, or go on "fishing" expeditions. This is an EU directive, not a UK law, but it's so bad that it should be explicitly voided. Free speech requires the right to anonymous speech. Wiretapping must be limited in extend, and require a court order.
This Act prevents members of the Royal Family from marriage without either the consent of the monarch or both Houses of Parliament and notification of the Privy Council. In this day and age it is unacceptable that the monarch should be able to agree and disagree to marriages in his/her family.
Corporate and charitable reform
Explanatory Note: There are whole swathes of government matters, relating to corporations and charities, that are bill related. Abolish the bill, or reform the system, and corporations (including government "corporations" intended to produce reports without parliamentary approval) must change or face being made illegal.
Clause
Legislation
Extent of repeal
Reasoning
i
Charities Act 2006
Provision for "public benefit" of private schools
A politically motivated clause that forces an unnecessary and deliberate burden on private schools that provide excellent education. To be replaced with a provision banning the use of taxpayers' money, in the form of tax refunds, to politically motivated "charities" such as the Taxpayers' Alliance.
This Act has never been bought into force, and if it was to happen at some stage, it would make the UK out-of-sync with the date of Easter in all other countries. The date of Easter is a consideration for the churches, not Parliament.
There is nothing left in this Act since all of its provisions have been since repealed.
Authorities and bodies to be abolished
Clause
Authority or body
Enabling Legislation
Reasoning
Debate
i.
England Marketing Advisory Board
Obsolete and no longer necessary.
ii.
Gambling Commission
Obsolete and no longer necessary.
iii.
Horserace Betting Levy Board
Obsolete and no longer necessary.
Agreed: Do we really need a board for this (especially if the government will be selling off the Tote)?
iv.
British Wool Marketing Board
No reason why farmers cannot have a marketing organisation. No reason why they have to register with this board.
v.
The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
Again, like wool marketing, there is no reason why we need a board with a compulsory levy on the potato industry. If potato farmers want a marketing association then they can set one up.
↑according to the NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects, part of the US govt Center for Disease Control the ED:LD ratio is 641 as opposed to 199 for aspirin.
