Changes to the law

[RailwayRowdy]

Every day the law stays unchanged means more lives lost, or ruined by terrible injuries - in a year, maybe hundreds, and thousands upon thousands of animals too.

 

However, you are right about the technology - it just needs installing, publicising and implementing fully.

 

Earlier at the garage I was waiting and a young girl, maybe 19, came in and she had to wait too - and we got talking, she was truly a nice person having problems with her first car, a small Fiat.

 

I mentioned that the insurance must be high and how unfair it was on young people - and she told me she was paying £122 a month, and added 'and that's with the black box'.

 

I asked what a black box was, and found that for young people, insurance companies (well, hers anyway) will cut your premium if you agree to have this device fitted which records every time you go over a speed limit (she said - just how is beyond me) or do other things that make your driving less safe.

 

You can (and she did) monitor it on a phone app and see how many 'penalty ponts' you are accruing, and if it is too many they won't insure you again at all, and the cost of next years insurance depends on your score too.

 

I was elated - what a fantastic idea ! Put them in all cars and do it for all drivers soon - self-regulation until the law and technology eventually make it impossible to break the speed limit (which they will within 10 years).

 

Anyone else know much about this - it sounds too good to be true !

Through work, I drive around 100,000 miles a year and have a similar device fitted to my vehicle. It tracks EVERY movement of the car and records EVERY time you break the speed limit, telling you where you were (even down to the road name & post code) and the time and date you did it. At the end of the week, I get a detailed print out of ALL these traffic transgressions and have to sign the print out to acknowledge it's validity. The benefit to the employer is reduced insurance premiums and the knowledge that all driving employees KNOW they are bring watched 24/7. Now THAT makes you stick to speed limits !

What would the penalties be? Direct ownership or ownership via an investment instrument such as a trust or pension?.

 

I had a second home but that was because it's value had dropped so much I could not sell it without making a large loss yet needed to move to somewhere bigger..had to hang onto it until it was back in profit or lose money my family could not afford to lose.

 

For some it's their pension..they are trying to provide for themselves in their old age

 

Some are undoubtedly hovering up properties to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible.

 

There are many many reasons why people have second homes

 

I'd look at CGT on them being 'harsher' where they haven't lived in them and also how to tax income from them at maybe a higher rate. Undoubtedly in places like where I live it has a major impact on the locals who are priced out and the buy to let mkt has got out of control due to many reasons..including how housing benefit is paid and the amount available

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

[Regal Beagle]

Thanks - it was a genuine question in view of your opinion.

 

I can't honestly see the justification for UK nationals not owning one piece of property here to live in, at least, even if not whole blocks of Chelsea.

If I won a lot of money I'd want to live in a better country and would be a bit upset if I couldn't buy somewhere there unless the country had a fully socialist policy on ownership.

 

What countries are better just out of interest?

[Bea Smith]

What countries are better just out of interest?

 

That would depend on who you asked. For me, it is a very small number, perhaps I should have said 'better for me'. Maybe you'd like to answer that first, or maybe you think that everyone should consider their own country best regardless.

 

Better can also cover many things - only a blindfolded fool would say Britain had the best scenery in the world, remarkable as some of it is. Or that Britain has the best wine - if that is important to a person. It probably does have the best fish and chips though.

 

I would hope you aren't one of those dumbells that says to people 'well go and live there' which misses the point completely.

[Bea Smith]

We will all be in driverless cars in the next ten years. So the debate will no longer be relevant soon.

 

Road deaths have ranged annually from about 1700 to 3000 per year between the years 2000 and 2015.

 

'Soon' will not be soon enough for something between 17,000 and 30,000 people and their families, plus well over 1000,000 seriously injured in those 10 years. And the number of animals killed will be in the millions in 10 years.

[Bea Smith]

Through work, I drive around 100,000 miles a year and have a similar device fitted to my vehicle. It tracks EVERY movement of the car and records EVERY time you break the speed limit, telling you where you were (even down to the road name & post code) and the time and date you did it. At the end of the week, I get a detailed print out of ALL these traffic transgressions and have to sign the print out to acknowledge it's validity. The benefit to the employer is reduced insurance premiums and the knowledge that all driving employees KNOW they are bring watched 24/7. Now THAT makes you stick to speed limits !

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

 

 

Thank you, I was aware of tachometers but didn't realise they were now so sophisticated. I cannot see any sensible, logical reason for not enforcing this on every motorised road vehicle immediately, or as soon as is practically possible for garages to fir the devices.

 

They need to be publicised more, make people aware that lives can be saved, and that it is possible to stop carnage on the roads - this should be taken u by a political party.

 

If you can do it on 100,000 driven miles, it should not be asking too much of anyone else who drives a tiny proportion of that.

[geosname]

Thanks - it was a genuine question in view of your opinion.

 

I can't honestly see the justification for UK nationals not owning one piece of property here to live in, at least, even if not whole blocks of Chelsea.

If I won a lot of money I'd want to live in a better country and would be a bit upset if I couldn't buy somewhere there unless the country had a fully socialist policy on ownership.

 

Better is very subjective.

[Paul6754]

I'm sure you'll be happy when a life company turns you down cos you have a much increased chance of developing condition X and you can't get a job, can't get a mortgage or your children can't. They will do all they can to minimise their risk..this is an other way for them to do so.

 

Laws in the USA (and I suspect the UK) already exist to prevent genetic information from being used by a potential employer or an actual employer in the workplace, to stop health and other insurances being denied although life insurance is excepted at the momentin the USA but often provided by an employer no questions asked.

 

More and more people are getting their DNA sequenced for mainly health reasons and more laws will be enacted to prevent Insurance companies and the like from engaging in genetic discrimination irrespective of a national DNA database which I'm in favor of for the reasons stated.

 

The point was the info could be used 'against' you..this was another way. You might be the best 'dad' in the world but that will cut little slack with the courts if the real 'dad' wants the child. If the DNA of the child and yours isn't available/usable then the child can't be taken from you for the reason of you not being the father cos no one knows that you aren't...if it's compulsory then it will be easy enough to find out.

 

All good unless it's you that loses the child you consider and may have raised as your own for some time

 

JA, that's such a weak, tangential argument/point. I would anticipate the child would want to know who his/her biological parents are if there is doubt, The child would have a say who they commit to and I have no idea if the "real dad" would have the right to "take" the child but if it were down to a hospital error than I expect he would if it's in the child's best interests.

[geosname]

Laws dont prevent people doing something they shouldnt.

[geosname]

Interesting and worthy of detailed discussion, however I think our delightful fiends in the Conservative party, and a few Labour and others be a teeny bit upset with your radical ideas.

 

That isn't to say that I am, would need to think through the implications, but the first is that so much is owned by 'non-UK citizens' already that getting it back would bankrupt the country and make nationalising the railways seem like pennies.

 

Selling off the family silver in terms of our companies, property etc has been a hallmark of policy for the Tories since a certain old bat from a cellar in Grantham decided to dupe us all.

 

The other things.. well, I am not sure 25 per cent tax on a second household vehcle for a large family where Dad is a doctor, Mum a teacher, grown up kids living with them on shifts and virtually no pulic transport - hmmmmmmm...... sure about that one ?

 

I have be rude here and ask if you own any property outsidthe UK and if you don't mind similar rules being applied to it Geo, of course you don't have to answer before anyone accuses me of being the Stasi (I quite liked that actually, their uniforms were excellent and I do like knowing all my neighbours tax evasion secrets).

 

I would also upgrade the bus system into communities at a minimal charge for use [50p?] on a very regular basis.

Banning gratuities would also be on my list.

None UK residents to pay full cost of any medical care needed but keep reciprocal agreements with europe.

Scrap nuclear defence options completely.

Embark on a massive home building scheme [not massive homes] 1,2,3 bedroom homes no higher than 4 floors all with a balcony and secondary escape.

Scrap HS2, redevelop the rail network to enable more trains and routs.

I would also be tempted to scrap the NHS and develop a new NHS based on what the need would be in 20 years and update yearly based around customer/patient care... but thats one hell of a big project.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Laws in the USA (and I suspect the UK) already exist to prevent genetic information from being used by a potential employer or an actual employer in the workplace, to stop health and other insurances being denied although life insurance is excepted at the momentin the USA but often provided by an employer no questions asked.

 

For the umpteenth time I'm not concerned with "today" I am concerned with the future use of this information.

 

More and more people are getting their DNA sequenced for mainly health reasons and more laws will be enacted to prevent Insurance companies and the like from engaging in genetic discrimination irrespective of a national DNA database which I'm in favor of for the reasons stated.

 

As I have said I don't trust them not to use it in the future for purposes that it's not used for today..if people want to volunteer their DNA then by all means and they will encounter positives and negatives from doing that but it will be their choice.

 

 

 

JA, that's such a weak, tangential argument/point. I would anticipate the child would want to know who his/her biological parents are if there is doubt,

 

The child will assume that who raises it are its parents cos those raising it don't doubt that they are its parents

 

The child would have a say who they commit to

 

Eh? A 1 year old (for example) would have a say?

 

and I have no idea if the "real dad" would have the right to "take" the child but if it were down to a hospital error than I expect he would if it's in the child's best interests.

 

The man raising the child has no claim on the child at a young age as far as I know...happy to be corrected on that

 

The point is a simple one..a less likely scenario but nevertheless it would be another example of DNA info being used 'against you'.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I would also upgrade the bus system into communities at a minimal charge for use [50p?] on a very regular basis.

Banning gratuities would also be on my list.

None UK residents to pay full cost of any medical care needed but keep reciprocal agreements with europe.

Scrap nuclear defence options completely.

Embark on a massive home building scheme [not massive homes] 1,2,3 bedroom homes no higher than 4 floors all with a balcony and secondary escape.

Scrap HS2, redevelop the rail network to enable more trains and routs.

I would also be tempted to scrap the NHS and develop a new NHS based on what the need would be in 20 years and update yearly based around customer/patient care... but thats one hell of a big project.

 

We're moving into the area of policy now as opposed to specific laws but fair enough if that's where people want to take this

 

Re buses, big issue round my way as lots of rural services being stopped or really scaled back as they just don't make any money. Solution for me is either allow local authorities to run them as they may be able to do so and break even or make a small acceptable loss (maybe even a small profit), allow cooperatives to operate specific routes so the users effectively run the route or pay the bus companies a subsidy to cover their losses (as I believe happens now to a great extent).

 

It's awkward to do much else as for example putting fairs up elsewhere means those on the popular routes are subsidising the loss making routes...they may be happy to do that but not sure how you find out

[mr.hobblesworth]

I would replace that awful dirge of a national anthem with The Four Tops' I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch)

 

I'd also ban the sale of any meat or animal by-product that didn't meet strict ethical standards

 

I'd deport Richard Hammond (or blast him in to the sun)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'd also ban the sale of any meat or animal by-product that didn't meat strict ethical standards

 

Agree with the principle but which standards? What might be acceptable to someone ethically might not be acceptable to someone else. I know the law would define what's acceptable and what isn't so what should the law define as acceptable?

 

I'd start by banning the live transport of animals over a certain distance and I'd also ban the slaughter practices used for halal an kosher meat.

[Regal Beagle]

That would depend on who you asked. For me, it is a very small number, perhaps I should have said 'better for me'. Maybe you'd like to answer that first, or maybe you think that everyone should consider their own country best regardless.

 

Better can also cover many things - only a blindfolded fool would say Britain had the best scenery in the world, remarkable as some of it is. Or that Britain has the best wine - if that is important to a person. It probably does have the best fish and chips though.

 

I would hope you aren't one of those dumbells that says to people 'well go and live there' which misses the point completely.

 

I was just wondering what you'd be basing it on. Britain would be up there on anyones list I would think, despite the current political turbulence. I'm thinking in terms of tolerance, social care, infrastructure.

 

They aren't three criteria I'd prioritize if I was moving abroad though, each to their own.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I was just wondering what you'd be basing it on. Britain would be up there on anyones list I would think, despite the current political turbulence. I'm thinking in terms of tolerance, social care, infrastructure.

 

They aren't three criteria I'd prioritize if I was moving abroad though, each to their own.

 

The best place to be for me is where my loved ones are..I'd put up with a lot (anything maybe) to stay near to them so the UK it is for me if that's where they are and want to be. If it were intolerable here for me then it probably would be for them too so what they want would be the determining factor.