The general European rate of crime is supposed to have decreased during the last decade. We can’t be sure of all the statistics, because we now know there has been much fiddling with the figures. But it would be good to take advantage of any trend to try to nearly obliterate two crimes that cause great personal distress – namely mugging (street robbery) and burglaries of private dwellings.

Unlike Britain in the 19th Century, no-one is reliant on crime to keep themselves or their children in food. Therefore it is unacceptable that innocent people should suffer such distress from these unnecessary crimes.

MUGGING/STREET ROBBERY.  There should be a huge taboo about any type of violence in the street, and this taboo should be reflected in the sentencing.  In a nation that claims to be civilized , we should  be able to walk anywhere without the slightest fear of violent robbery.  The results can be devastating. I knew one woman in Brixton who, after suffering a mugging at the age of 50, never dared again to leave her house in the evening.

Robbery (the term implies either violence or a threat of violence) is is not a rare crime.  More than 60,000 incidents being reported each year, and of course the real figure being more than 100,000, because many are not reported. Over the years the sentences of convicted muggers have mostly got more lenient, with the length of sentences reducing, and there has been a massive increase in community sentences, and even in suspended sentences (only 16 in 1998; 476 in 2009). Instead there should be ferocious penalties, including “two strikes (not three strikes) and you’re out”. Prison sentences for robbery involving knives and guns are often still absurdly lenient. Street crime has also been exacerbated by the value of the latest mobile phones.  In London, our capital city of which we should be proud, more than 160 mobiles are snatched from pedestrians each day.

With a crime such as street robbery, it is exceptionally difficult for the police to catch the offender. Another reason to give a ferocious penalty to the minority that are caught. Some might argue that this would expensively fill up our prisons.  But in fact a ferocious and well publicised deterrent would greatly reduce the incidence of this crime. And taking everything into account, the expense of prison is not so great as appears, because it would save the huge paperwork and administration of dealing with the crimes that the villains would commit if they hadn’t been imprisoned.  Most crime such as robbery and burglary is committed by recidivists.

BURGLARIES.   Very real distress is caused when homes are burgled.  Just recently the Guardian reported the extreme case of a vulnerable old man whose life was wrecked by being burgled dozens of times in his final years. More often than might be gathered from newspapers,  burglars leave shit or urine in the house, and make a horrendous mess, thus adding to the horror for the victims.

Even, taking into account massaged statistics, there are more than 200,000 ‘burglaries in a dwelling’ each year. This is totally unacceptable and unnecessary. Again it would be reduced by ferocious penalties, and ‘two strikes and you’re out’. Often when taken to court, burglars ask for dozens of offences to be ‘taken into account’, but all these past offences do little to increase the sentence, and seem not to take any account of the massive distress that has been caused.  Again, as any student of criminology knows,  a massive increase in the length of prison sentences would be a valuable deterrent, and again, this would be greatly enhanced by ‘two strikes and you’re out’.

The greatest sin of all governance is Conflict of Interest (far more damaging to good governance than any sexual peccadilloes). In future years, it will seem primitive and unethical that businesses or Trade Unions should seek to influence government decisions by donating large sums of money. Not only should there be no conflict of interest, but also there should never be a PERCEPTION of conflict of interest. Bernie Ecclestone’s large contribution to the Labour Party, and the subsequent redaction of a ban on tobacco advertising is a memorable example. Political parties may claim that they need large sums of money for their campaigns; but do we need all those advertising billboards, with slick advertisements crafted by PR companies.

With the rise of the internet, there is no reason why political parties should not pay more attention to individuals, and raise large amounts of money from small contributions. In the United States, Barack Obama raised huge and sufficient amounts through the social media. This might also encourage the political parties to develop closer relations with their dwindling local organizations!

Superficially our economy appears to be improving, but much of this is frothy growth based on excessive borrowing.  During the last few years our rate of investment and productivity have both badly deteriorated and are still deteriorating Slots. These are the key markers for future sustainable growth.

There are many reasons for this decline, and much that could be done. But there is one simple measure that would help: increase tax breaks for research and development.

Because of a near monopoly at airports, the exchange rates are legalized larceny, truly outrageous.  And customers discover that apart from being fleeced by distorted exchange rates, they have to pay a commission.  If they are to exchange a modest amount of cash, this commission often represents an unethically high percentage of the exchanged money.

The few exchange counters at airports almost invariably offer identical rates.  This is an effective restraint of trade which  is firmly not allowed in other areas.  Alfred Taubman, the chairman of Sothebys, went to prison for a restraint of trade that was far less damaging to the public.

The effective restraint of trade at airports is reinforced by the lack of genuinely independent ATMs, which airline passengers could use to get foreign currency at fair prices.  It would be a simple matter to ensure that useful ATMs were available at airports.

The spreads between the buying and selling price of currencies indicate the profits that the exchange counters must be making. In March 2013, the difference (at all the counters at Manchester Airport) between the buying and selling price of the Euro was 1.35 to 1.06.  This excluded the high commission rate on any modest transactions.  In October 2013 all the counters were offering 9.21 Egyptian pounds for one Pound Sterling.  And yet in Egypt, it was very easy to get more than 10.6.   It is to be expected that travellers might not get the best rate at airports, but this disparity is too extreme.

The rapacity of exchange counters in all our airports is a great national disgrace and shame, reinforcing the image of ‘rip-off Britain.

Town centre shops are suffering dreadfully from high business rates and online competition. Their survival is further threatened by the parking problems of potential customers. With this in mind, Eric Pickles has suggested that motorists should be allowed to park briefly on double-yellow lines. This is not such a good idea, because the double-yellow lines are there to help traffic flow. A better idea would be for motorists to be able to park free of charge for a brief time (say, 20 or 30 minutes) in any designated parking bay. Thus they would not be impeding the traffic, but they would have time for brief shopping.

Their primary purpose should be to make traffic flow better, and so on. Not to increase their own revenue, or those of councils. This would concentrate them more on HELPING on the relevant issues of traffic flow and parking.  Instead of concentrating on raising revenue.

Any type of incentivisation (even indirect, which is sometimes the case) creates a Conflict of Interest.  For instance, when the issue of a ticket is marginal, instead of the Wardens deciding it on what is fair, they decide it on revenue, because their long-term income will be greater.If wardens were not incentivised, they would not issue tickets for some of the most outstandingly unfair cases, even though they are legalistically in the right. Some of the incentivisation may not be purely financial, but instead in the form of prizes, or of targets that they are obliged to meet in order not to be sacked.

The same should be true of train managers.  Recently there was the typical case of a train manager who successfully issued a penalty ticket to a passenger who had decided to get off the train at a the station prior to his original destination.

Unless in exceptional circumstances, only those who pay British taxes should receive British honours.

It does seem shocking that national cash advance payday loans tax exiles, in places like Monaco should get an honour. Greater emphasis should be placed on Pro Bono Publico.

An inordinate amount of the time of magistrate courts is taken up with dealing with people who have not paid their television licence. It would save a lot of this valuable time, and a lot surveillance and unnecessary administration if the television licence was incorporated fast and easy payday loans into Council Tax bills. Nearly every household has a television, therefore the administration would be simple. If any household did not have a television, then they could easily opt out, in the same way that single-occupants pay a reduced rate of Council Tax.

There are a simply massive amount of unpaid fines. It takes a great deal of magistrates time to chase these; and sometimes it almost seems as if the fines are voluntary, and in the end many are paid effectively out of Benefits.

According to a BBC report in March 2012, almost 2 billion pounds was owed in unpaid fines and confiscation orders. And that some 60% of money pursued via confiscation orders may never be recovered.

The power and flexibility of magistrates would be greatly increased if they could seize cars.  The cars could sometimes be returned when fines were paid; or sold in order to pay the fines.