You can write one law

[ZOLLAR]

peterperkins said:

TorqueDirty said:

I'm a very easy going guy, completely liberal in mindset and believe that everyone should be able to do as they see fit as long as it makes them happy and does not harm anyone or anything else.

Having said that.................my law would be that people who litter should be punished by having at least one digit cut off without anesthetic. Those that drive out in to the countryside to dump stuff on a larger scale should lose a hand.

I am utterly confident that people who deliberately litter (lobbing stuff out of the car window, dumping old carpets in laybys etc) can not possibly have anything valuable to contribute to society. I defy you to find someone who litters who is an otherwise really decent person.

These people have an utter distain for the environment, nature, their community and – not that I am in the least bit nationalistic - their country. Either that or their IQ is so astonishingly low that once again they are unlikely to contribute anything other than a plethora of equally pointless and retarded offspring.

Under my new law these people would no longer be able to litter because they would no longer have the necessary digits to pick anything up to lob it out of the car window.

People who litter fundamentally are, and always will be, s. There, I said it. I commend this motion to the house.

Other than this, I’m as liberal as you get!

TD

Nail > Head.. This candidate for PM gets my vote.

You want a complete liberal who isn’t nationalistic at all to be the PM? Ok

That being said, I agree with the littering point.
Also people who don’t pick up their dogs st!

[Mothersruin]

Religion.

Children are not allowed to have any exposure to religion until they are 18.

Then they are allowed a visit from a single representative of each one who can explain why their doctrine is less nuts than the others.

If they then decide to follow one, it holds the same legal weight as supporting a football team. None.

[RTB]

Facebook, twitter, instagram etc forced to introduce a £5 per post and quid per like charging policy. All funds raised to go towards making life a little better for everyone

[robemcdonald]

I would make it illegal for any MP to have any income other than the MP salary.
MP salary would need to be increased to partially make up for this of course, but when you become an MP you would have to give up any other business activity including:
Being a landlord
Director of any business
Writing for newspapers
Public speaking

Failure to follow the spirit of this law or to find and exploit any loop hole would result in instant removal from office and five years imprisonment.

That way we might end up with politicians with our interests at heart and not using their position to line their own pockets.

[ZOLLAR]

Mothersruin said:

Religion.

Children are not allowed to have any exposure to religion until they are 18.

Then they are allowed a visit from a single representative of each one who can explain why their doctrine is less nuts than the others.

If they then decide to follow one, it holds the same legal weight as supporting a football team. None.

I like this.

[amusingduck]

Religion gets treated as any other recreational club. No exemptions, not taught, no protections, etc. People are free to do whatever they like but will not be treated any differently whatsoever for doing so.

[TorqueDirty]

ZOLLAR said:

peterperkins said:

TorqueDirty said:

I'm a very easy going guy, completely liberal in mindset and believe that everyone should be able to do as they see fit as long as it makes them happy and does not harm anyone or anything else.

Having said that.................my law would be that people who litter should be punished by having at least one digit cut off without anesthetic. Those that drive out in to the countryside to dump stuff on a larger scale should lose a hand.

I am utterly confident that people who deliberately litter (lobbing stuff out of the car window, dumping old carpets in laybys etc) can not possibly have anything valuable to contribute to society. I defy you to find someone who litters who is an otherwise really decent person.

These people have an utter distain for the environment, nature, their community and – not that I am in the least bit nationalistic - their country. Either that or their IQ is so astonishingly low that once again they are unlikely to contribute anything other than a plethora of equally pointless and retarded offspring.

Under my new law these people would no longer be able to litter because they would no longer have the necessary digits to pick anything up to lob it out of the car window.

People who litter fundamentally are, and always will be, s. There, I said it. I commend this motion to the house.

Other than this, I’m as liberal as you get!

TD

Nail > Head.. This candidate for PM gets my vote.

You want a complete liberal who isn’t nationalistic at all to be the PM? Ok

That being said, I agree with the littering point.
Also people who don’t pick up their dogs st!

How about if I modify my position from "Everyone should be able to do as they see fit" to "I should be able to do as I see fit".

I think this subtle change would automatically qualify me for a political leadership role.

TD

[Kermit power]

Jerry Can said:

Kermit power said:

On a slightly more serious note, I'd use my one law to say that there should only be one single rate of tax on salaries over the personal allowance.

Someone earning a lot more is already paying a lot more in tax. Making them pay a much higher percentage of their income is just unfair.

and yet the poor have to spend proportionately more of their income on taxable goods like petrol.

is your suggestion any fairer to those in the Lower tax bracket? Everyone pays at the same rate regardless of your ability to pay?

Are you sure about that? As far as I'm aware, things like rent, food and children's clothes are all tax exempt, and I would expect lower-paid people to be paying a larger proportion of their income on good in those brackets rather than more highly taxed ones? This is doubly true if you include the reduced rate of VAT on energy bills.

I still see no just reason for the more highly paid to be taxed a higher percentage of their salary. Apart from anything else, reducing the tax burden generally means more discretionary spending, so more jobs and fewer people on low pay in the first place.

[p1stonhead]

Kermit power said:

Jerry Can said:

Kermit power said:

On a slightly more serious note, I'd use my one law to say that there should only be one single rate of tax on salaries over the personal allowance.

Someone earning a lot more is already paying a lot more in tax. Making them pay a much higher percentage of their income is just unfair.

and yet the poor have to spend proportionately more of their income on taxable goods like petrol.

is your suggestion any fairer to those in the Lower tax bracket? Everyone pays at the same rate regardless of your ability to pay?

Are you sure about that? As far as I'm aware, things like rent, food and children's clothes are all tax exempt, and I would expect lower-paid people to be paying a larger proportion of their income on good in those brackets rather than more highly taxed ones? This is doubly true if you include the reduced rate of VAT on energy bills.

I still see no just reason for the more highly paid to be taxed a higher percentage of their salary. Apart from anything else, reducing the tax burden generally means more discretionary spending, so more jobs and fewer people on low pay in the first place.

Reducing tax for higher earners is certainly an interesting one

[Dermot O'Logical]

Steven_RW said:

Writing a post on a forum/youtube/social media site with the singular purpose of pointing out a spelling mistake or grammatical error in another post would now be a criminal offence.

All contributors to Forums should be made to pass a test in basic English, to include grammar, spelling and punctuation.

If one HGV takes more than a mile to overtake another, the driver being overtaken should be prosecuted for being a selfish, bloody-minded tt because he should have slowed to allow the overtake to be accomplished with minimal inconvenience to other road users.

I'm having two laws.

[George Smiley]

Women known to have made false claims of rape will be named.

[p1stonhead]

George Smiley said:

Women known to have made false claims of rape will be named.

And should go on the same register as an actual sex offender IMO.

[glenrobbo]

ESOG said:

What's fly tipping?

It's paying a prostitute an extra sum of money over and above her normal fee, in respect of her paying extra attention to your flies and the contents thereof.

[George Smiley]

glenrobbo said:

It's paying a prostitute an extra sum of money over and above her normal fee, in respect of her paying extra attention to your flies and the contents thereof.

I thought it was when someone points you are flying low

Hey George your flies undone.
Ha, thanks for the tip.

[George Smiley]

Dermot O'Logical said:

Steven_RW said:

Writing a post on a forum/youtube/social media site with the singular purpose of pointing out a spelling mistake or grammatical error in another post would now be a criminal offence.

All contributors to Forums should be made to pass a test in basic English, to include grammar, spelling and punctuation.

If one HGV takes more than a mile to overtake another, the driver being overtaken should be prosecuted for being a selfish, bloody-minded tt because he should have slowed to allow the overtake to be accomplished with minimal inconvenience to other road users.

I'm having two laws.

English, to...?

[Voldemort]

Serious: make voting compulsory. Big fines for not voting.


And on a personal note, tomatoes to be categorised as a class A drug with associated penalties. I fking hate tomatoes.

[George Smiley]

In benefits for more than a year? Lose right to vote

[Frank7]

George Smiley said:

Dermot O'Logical said:

Steven_RW said:

Writing a post on a forum/youtube/social media site with the singular purpose of pointing out a spelling mistake or grammatical error in another post would now be a criminal offence.

All contributors to Forums should be made to pass a test in basic English, to include grammar, spelling and punctuation.

If one HGV takes more than a mile to overtake another, the driver being overtaken should be prosecuted for being a selfish, bloody-minded tt because he should have slowed to allow the overtake to be accomplished with minimal inconvenience to other road users.

I'm having two laws.

English, to...?

I want to say that maybe, just maybe George, you’ve made an erroneous assumption, but in matters involving grammar, I think my nose should stay out, and not be stuck in.

[768]

glenrobbo said:

ninepoint2 said:

Nothing under 300bhp allowed in lane three of motorway, and increase speed limit in same lane to at least 190mph

FTFY. PH: Speed Matters.

Plus there should be a minimum speed of 90 mph imposed on all motorways.

I'd mandate seeking progress.

Faster, higher, further. Progression of the species over longevity of current individuals. Straight to the gulag for anyone who tries to buy a Nissan Micra or lower a speed limit. State funding of trains to be pulled in favour of bringing in a replacement for Concorde.

[Turbotechnic]

All Heath and safety should be abolished. Let natural selection and take its own course.