Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

one law you would introduce if u were President/Prime Minister Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yes but is this really something that you think the police should get involved with? the police cost a lot of money and this is just going to make them more expensive - is it worth it just for some basically harmless smoke? I don't like smoke either but I'm not going to phone the police if somebody walks along with a cigarette wofting smoke around - I can fight my own battles surely and I can simply tell them to go somewhere else with it, because most people will respect people's will to not have smoke in their faces

    and I have to emphasise that if we're going to ban things simply because they smell (e cigs) then does that mean smelly people should be banned?
    Noone's suggesting outright banning people from smoking e-cigs. The ban would just be on smoking e-cigs in public places, which I think is more than reasonable. Why should everyone else be subject to your poison when they're just trying to walk along the street, or sit on the train? Really, nobody should smoke e-cigs near other people in the first place; but unfortunately, many smokers are douches with no sense of responsibility, so state intervention is needed to stop them from being douches and poisoning everyone around them. Sometimes, just asking or telling someone not to smoke near you doesn't work. Some people won't budge until you start getting violent. (perhaps we should just have a law that makes it illegal to refuse to move or put away your e-cigarette when someone asks?)

    Even if e-cigs are mostly harmless(which still hasn't been completely proven), they still produce a smoke which obstructs the sight and breathing of people nearby. They can also cause asthma attacks. (which is why I think aerosols should be banned in public places too. Asthma sufferers are quite common)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jazzyboy)
    Noone's suggesting outright banning people from smoking e-cigs. The ban would just be on smoking e-cigs in public places, which I think is more than reasonable.
    how is it reasonable?

    Why should everyone else be subject to your poison when they're just trying to walk along the street, or sit on the train?
    e-cigs don't produce "poison".

    Really, nobody should smoke e-cigs near other people in the first place; but unfortunately, many smokers are douches with no sense of responsibility,
    are they though? this really isn't the norm any more in this culture.

    so state intervention is needed to stop them from being douches and poisoning everyone around them.
    again, e-cigs aren't poison.
    "tell a lie enough times and eventually people will believe it" won't work on me.

    Sometimes, just asking or telling someone not to smoke near you doesn't work. Some people won't budge until you start getting violent. (perhaps we should just have a law that makes it illegal to refuse to move or put away your e-cigarette when someone asks?)
    so you're honestly telling me you'd be prepared to start a fight with somebody for smoking near you? wow. why should I take you seriously given this fact?

    Even if e-cigs are mostly harmless(which still hasn't been completely proven), they still produce a smoke which obstructs the sight and breathing of people nearby. They can also cause asthma attacks. (which is why I think aerosols should be banned in public places too. Asthma sufferers are quite common)
    sorry but that's all made-up rubbish. e-cigs provably are not irritable or carcinogenic - they might look like cigarettes but they're not cigarettes. "obstruct the sight"? that's an incredibly weak argument, isn't it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Firearms would allow to overthrow the state and introduce an anarchy, which must cause some gangs and mafias to take power over, so this would free people from tyranny of the state, and and introduce a tyrranny of gangs.
    You're right, I'll use my side-arm to overthrow the state. Oh wait, what's that... Is it a bird? Is it a plane?... Nope, it's an attack helicopter!
    ...

    I really don't see how people think the type of guns an average person can buy will help against a tyrannical government. If history is anything to go by they'll probably be voted in and supported anyway.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Abolish benefits entirely except for disabled and elderly people. Along with that I would heavily reduce taxes and have a flat tax system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Automatic 3 year prison sentence for parents who smack their children.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    You're right, I'll use my side-arm to overthrow the state. Oh wait, what's that... Is it a bird? Is it a plane?... Nope, it's an attack helicopter!
    ...

    I really don't see how people think the type of guns an average person can buy will help against a tyrannical government. If history is anything to go by they'll probably be voted in and supported anyway.
    I was only kidding, though government must be tyrrannical, whatever the political system, unless you introduce an anarchy- a system wich may last maybe for weeks, before gangs start taking over.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's boring, but I'd require the use of proportional representation in all future elections - with STV. I really hate how unrepresentative FPTP be, but the parties who get in power will never, ever change it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A few come to mind.

    - Legalise all drugs, so long as it's only for personal use and only after they've been informed of the risks. If someone's dumb enough to still do it and they die, that's just Darwinism at its finest. Making it easier and cheaper to get with less risk involved with drug dealers will definitely work.

    - When someone, celebrity or not, is accused of rape, their name/information isn't released until any proof of the original claim is given.

    - Anyone who thinks they deserve a 'safe space' at university from opinions they find offensive should be removed from their course and sent back to nursery.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AH127)
    - Anyone who thinks they deserve a 'safe space' at university from opinions they find offensive should be removed from their course and sent back to nursery.
    Is this that bad in UK? On Earth's sake, University ought to be a place for fully free debate on anything!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Abolish benefits entirely except for disabled and elderly people. Along with that I would heavily reduce taxes and have a flat tax system.
    Really?

    But what about people who lose their jobs in corporate takeovers... If they are +50 years old they can find it incredibly difficult to find new jobs because companies prefer hiring people that are a bit younger. Yet 50 isn't that old. These people could be parents with children still in school that depend on them... Without benefits they would be f***ed!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Law for the protection of German blood and honour


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    Is this that bad in UK? On Earth's sake, University ought to be a place for fully free debate on anything!
    A few examples that come to mind below, but I'm mainly looking for us to nip it in the bud before we end up like the USA.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/student...-a6967191.html

    http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/news/stu...ans/24/11/2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/student...-a6671236.html
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If I could only make one law, I'd make it a crime to commit paternity fraud i.e. when a woman names a man as the biological father of her child when she knows or believes there is a possibility that he is not.

    The aim would be to prevent women who get pregnant as a result of having an affair from concealing their actions from an existing partner by claiming (or allowing him to assume) that he is the biological father.

    Though if I could make a second law, I'd also make it a crime for a married person to have an extra-marital affair without the knowledge and consent of their spouse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    I was only kidding, though government must be tyrrannical, whatever the political system, unless you introduce an anarchy- a system wich may last maybe for weeks, before gangs start taking over.
    I'm curious about your logic as to why a government must be tyrannical?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lissy14)
    Really?

    But what about people who lose their jobs in corporate takeovers... If they are +50 years old they can find it incredibly difficult to find new jobs because companies prefer hiring people that are a bit younger. Yet 50 isn't that old. These people could be parents with children still in school that depend on them... Without benefits they would be f***ed!
    If their skills are in demand, they will be hired. If not, they will have to go for a lower paid job and work for a bit longer until they find a better job. if they can't find a job, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. I just don't feel that it is right for taxpayers to pay for them to sit at home, not doing anything.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AH127)
    - When someone, celebrity or not, is accused of rape, their name/information isn't released until any proof of the original claim is given.
    Sounds like a good idea, but personally I'd do that for any crime, not just rape. I don't know if this is already the case but I think the victim should also be able to opt to remain anonymous.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    If their skills are in demand, they will be hired. If not, they will have to go for a lower paid job and work for a bit longer until they find a better job. if they can't find a job, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. I just don't feel that it is right for taxpayers to pay for them to sit at home, not doing anything.
    I don't think that giving people money when they do nothing is a good idea. A cut down on undeserved benefits is definitely needed.

    But finding a job can take months. Writing CVs, going to job applications, having to do more at home because the other half had to increase their hours. It's not sitting at home doing nothing. They may have to sell their house or split up their family in order to move where the work is. The kids would go through so much disruption to their schooling and in a worse case scenario that could effect their future. All of that would desimate a persons saving... Having a low paid job on top of that is often to feasible. And they may not even manage to get there old level job at the end. The stress can be very damaging to children and is easily enough to split up families.

    I believe that if people can prove they are actively looking for a new job to the best of their ability, then they should be given some support.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    If their skills are in demand, they will be hired. If not, they will have to go for a lower paid job and work for a bit longer until they find a better job. if they can't find a job, then unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. I just don't feel that it is right for taxpayers to pay for them to sit at home, not doing anything.
    Their skills may be in demand but there are likely younger people with the same skills who companies are more likely to hire. Lower paid jobs will see them as "over qualified" or just find people less qualified who they know they can pay even less.

    So in this situation, where they genuinely can't find a job through no fault of their own, you think they should just be left to starve on the street?

    As for lowering taxes, how are you still going to pay for all the various public services we use? Benefits is a tiny portion of the government budget.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I'm curious about your logic as to why a government must be tyrannical?
    Government cannot introduce laws that will be approved by everyone, so some citizens will always be forced to obey the laws they don't like, and it is impossible to avoid it.

    (Original post by Lissy14)
    I

    I believe that if people can prove they are actively looking for a new job to the best of their ability, then they should be given some support.
    Such systems are often badly prepared, so they can be tricked, and it would be waste of public money to hire administration workers to keep the unworking system running.
    A six months low handout would be good, and only for those who worked long enough before, to pay for it.

    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Their skills may be in demand but there are likely younger people with the same skills who companies are more likely to hire. Lower paid jobs will see them as "over qualified" or just find people less qualified who they know they can pay even less.

    So in this situation, where they genuinely can't find a job through no fault of their own, you think they should just be left to starve on the street?
    I don't see, how somebody who had a high rank in corporation, would not be able to find just some job, below his skills. Also, in extreme cases, some charity organizations would take care of them.

    I may add to that, that I live in a country, where social benefits are very low, and still some people do their best just to trick the system and live of handouts, while 25% of population works for 2 phounds per hour, and average salary is 5 phounds per hour. A highly skilled and programmer with 5 years of experience gets 6 maybe 7 phounds...
    Moreover, as I know from my friend who works in social care, sometimes there are people who really need help and he can't give them any handouts. Still, you won't see starving people around here. People in urgent need, work as gardeners, scrap collectors, or just ask people for some food. And people give it to them.

    Do you trust british people and immigration from all around the world, that they would rather work than have money for living for free?

    (Original post by Dheorl)
    As for lowering taxes, how are you still going to pay for all the various public services we use? Benefits is a tiny portion of the government budget.
    Assumption is I guess, that in strong, growing economy, VAT would do the job.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.