TV ADVERTS TO EXPLAIN THE LAW 

 As everyone knows, ignorance  of the law is no excuse and doesn't excuse you from being prosecuted.  Unfortunately millions of people especially in the younger age groups, are ignorant of the law and so are putting themselves at risk of unknowingly breaking laws. Television has never been used seriously for this purpose - MAINSTREAM would use TV by a series of regular adverts in the commecial breaks, or between programs on BBC. These would be short, hard-hitting to-the-point explanations of some specific law. 


   You only have to look around to see how poor driving standards are: Accidents every day on all motorways, for every accident which happens,  a hundred near-misses. Television is the perfect medium for explaining good driving techniques, yet it's never been tried in Britain. A MAINSTREAM government would sponsor short driving-improvement commercials at peak viewing times, each targeting a specific driving situation (eg lane discipline, slip roads entry and exit, parallel parking, and so on).  The TV screen would be split into two: Left-hand showing the vehicles and the road from above, the right side, showing the driver's view (similar to many computer games which involve racing cars). 

    And we'd use TV in another novel way: By showing some of Britain's worst drivers in action. This would be a weekly or monthly program "Dickhead Drivers".  This would be made by hiding cameras in places where accidents happen a lot (such as bends on fast roads, blind bends and blind summits, etc) .  When a motorist is seen to be driving badly, this section would be shown on TV but unlike existing similar programs, Dickhead Drivers would NOT hide any identifying features on cars. Watching this show, would be the same for the viewer as if they were actually present - even if this means they are able to identify not only the cars, but also the people at the wheel.  The police would be shown these extracts beforehand so we could get a guarantee of  them taking no action. (This is necessary because otherwise, showing these excerpts could prejudice the trial). Then the scenes would be broadcast - drivers in-shot  - whether the ones driving badly, or just other passing motorists - would NOT  be informed beforehand and would not have any right to prevent their vehicles and driving,  being shown on telly.  Why not?  Because in a public place, no-one has the right not to be watched or filmed.  And these bad drivers would no longer be able to claim that their 'Human Rights' were being infringed, by identifying them on TV - that's because MAINSTREAM would have removed us from our subservience to the Brussels Human Rights laws. (This is precisely the kind of situation whcih shows how appalling the EU's Human Rights declaration is - it forces us to keep bad behaviour, and dangerous actions, in public places,  hidden and secret, instead of out in the open).     


      MAINSTREAM would stop the television companies from continually pixellating ("fuzzing-out") faces of people in News items. This happens whether  the broadcast is a view taken in the street of passers-by, or CCTV being used to catch criminals, whatever. This is a new scary form of censorship where a privileged few - those who work in the media, and those few people who were actually at the scene - are allowed to see the full picture: But all the rest of us, are prevented from doing so.  When will the media magnates get it? The whole point of television news, is that TV is supposed to put US - the viewer - right at the scene of the action. WE are supposed to see on our tellys - exactly what the cameraman - or woman - is seeing.  And that means putting a stop to pixellation / fuzzing-out faces, whatever you want to call it.  MAINSTREAM would only allow pixellation on Television, in one of two special  cases:  One, where the pictures were recorded in a private place (eg, somebody's home or garden);  or two  - where the recording could prejudice a legal case already in progress. (This is called 'sub judice' and means that somebody has already been charged with an offence).    

                          END TO GAMBLING & BETTING ADVERTS ON TELLY

   Gambling adverts used to be  rare on television, now we've gone to the other extreme and they're on TV all the time. This is a backward step, because it is making it seem respectable for people to be gambling the whole time - not just at the betting shop but online, on their mobile phones, on their tablets and laptops.  This would be fine if all punters were rich -   they're not, most of them can only fund non-stop gambling by using funds which they and their family need to pay the bills. By definition, the betting public has far more losers than winners. Nobody wants to ban gambling but it should never be encouraged or promoted, and that means no more advertising it on TV, thankyou!     


  MAINSTREAM would abolish the outdated TV lecence fee. The fee was originally used to pay for BBC TV programming, which has no adverts. But in this day and age, when the vast majority of channels on TV are NOT from the BBC  - why should all viewers still need to buy a licence, just to watch any telly?  The licence has become an absurd anachronism.  It's also nearly impossoble to enforce, as there are now loads of ways to receive TV broadcasts which don't come via a TV screen - using online streaming, and so on. With a MAINSTREAM government - the TV licence would be a thing of the past.