Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

You are given the power to make three things illegal. What would you choose?

705 replies

SpringSunshineanddaffodils · 27/04/2025 08:40

I know people will post silly things that irritate them but think seriously. What three things would you make completely illegal right now?
Here's mine:

  1. The right to buy your council house
  2. Owning more than one property.
  3. Not keeping your cat contained in your own home. With hefty fines if it is caught killing any wildlife.
OP posts:
TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 28/04/2025 07:44

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 28/04/2025 06:51

If there are multiple dogs in the room it is worse. So coffee shops now may have 4-5 dogs at different tables and in the queue. Obviously their fur sheds and the places don’t wash all soft furnishings everyday, likewise trains have soft furnishings, clothes shops as well. It isn’t really acceptable to allow multiple dogs into these areas. Trains should have animal carriages.

Show quote history

Animal carriages are a great idea.
I don’t want to ban dogs but there do need to be more restrictions so we can coexist. The world is big enough for dog lovers and dog haters.

minnienono · 28/04/2025 07:46

Those electric scooters, lethal and used by thieves here (think they are illegal of course), can’t think of anything else

minnienono · 28/04/2025 07:51

Ps we need people to be allowed to own more than one house so we have a rental sector - many of us need to rent due to relocation and/or marriage breakdown temporarily and rely on these landlords to rent for a year or so whilst permanent house is sold and divorce is processed. Wouldn’t qualify for council housing as own a house and have too much money!

I don’t think houses (unless being sold or renovated) should sit empty for most the year though I do know people with holiday homes they barely use.

Ohmych · 28/04/2025 08:01

Pedophiles given a massive prison sentence

If they're not paying child maintenance it gets taken from the wages and becomes a criminal offence

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 08:23

furryfrontbottom · 28/04/2025 07:39

If you really want a nose pressed against your crotch in a crowded carriage, I'm sure one of your fellow passengers would oblige.

Show quote history

What sort of comment is this ?!

Myengagementring · 28/04/2025 08:27

Extendable dog leads

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 08:38

MonteStory · 28/04/2025 07:42

You compare cat and dog ownership saying that you take responsibility for your dog, implying that cat owners do not.

There is no legal imperative to control your dog so it doesn’t kill vermin, I doubt anyone would even bat an eyelid. I was just taking issue with you saying ‘as I do with my dog’ as if dog owners are more responsible.

In relation to birds, the rspb famously refute that cats are an issue, something cat haters love to conveniently ignore.

The UK’s largest bird charity, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), is not particularly concerned about the impact of cats on the British mainland. Instead it focuses on what it says is driving UK bird declines: global warming, intensive agriculture and expanding towns and cities leading to habitat and food loss. “While we know that cats do kill large numbers of birds in UK gardens, there’s no evidence this is affecting decline in the same way that these other issues are,” said a spokesperson.
A big reason why they are less worried is the evidence that cats primarily take “the doomed surplus”: weak or injured birds likely to die anyway. In 2008, Baker led a study in Bristol showing that birds killed by cats on average had less fat and muscle than birds killed by collisions with windows. While there could be other explanations – such as birds having less fat in the morning when cats tend to pounce – Baker says that the fat and muscle scores were so low that the birds were “in dire trouble before they got killed”. Another study from 2000 found that cat-killed birds in Denmark had smaller spleens, indicative of a weaker immune system.

From here: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/14/cats-kill-birds-wildlife-keep-indoors

Show quote history

well they’re a charity who don’t want alienate their base of animal loving cat owners who also love birds …

MonteStory · 28/04/2025 08:42

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 08:38

well they’re a charity who don’t want alienate their base of animal loving cat owners who also love birds …

Show quote history

Ah yes that must be it. Not science or research. They don’t want to upset that well known seat of power that is the cat owners lobby.

sleepwouldbenice · 28/04/2025 14:07

Kardamyli2 · 27/04/2025 21:15

Can you please translate your post to English? I'm not fluent in gibberish.

Show quote history

Sure. I know your level of comprehension is more used to tik tok videos

Your jokes match your IQ ie poor

Try using Google ( a search tool) to find reliable sources on this issue and your claim that climate change doesn't matter as the climate has always changed.... Try to find reliable sources and these aren't you tube and tiktok so you might have to put some effort in there

Also think of the other people who agree with you. Eg extreme maga supporters. Are they well known for their diligence?

You might still find this is all too much for you. I agree which is why I made the original suggestion. As rational people spend far too much time trying to teach stupid.

Dotjones · 28/04/2025 14:21

Generally I'd like to see stricter punishments for things that are already illegal more than criminalise more things, but I guess my top three would be:

  • Ban leasehold property altogether and force repayment for any charges over the past 10 years (life imprisonment for failing to comply)
  • Ban the broadcast, sale and display of "Mrs Brown's Boys" (10 years hard labour for a first offence, public execution for a subsequent offence)
  • Make it illegal to profit from essential services like water, electricity and housing (branding on forehead for offenders)
ZeldaFighter · 28/04/2025 14:26

Not 3 things but there's a bit of me thinking that chopping down historic trees merits the death penalty (and I'm a wishy-washy bleeding heart liberal but I love trees)

If I ever meet the people who chopped down the Sycamore Gap tree, I hope I have an axe to hand

IwasDueANameChange · 28/04/2025 15:23
  1. Owning more than one residential property.
  1. Profit generation from schools, children's homes, care homes or nurseries.
  1. porn.
taxguru · 28/04/2025 15:29

minnienono · 28/04/2025 07:51

Ps we need people to be allowed to own more than one house so we have a rental sector - many of us need to rent due to relocation and/or marriage breakdown temporarily and rely on these landlords to rent for a year or so whilst permanent house is sold and divorce is processed. Wouldn’t qualify for council housing as own a house and have too much money!

I don’t think houses (unless being sold or renovated) should sit empty for most the year though I do know people with holiday homes they barely use.

Private rentals need to be only allowed for housing associations and local councils. Get rid of the profit hungry private owners. Just need to beef up the social housing associations and change the rules/laws to allow councils to buy/build homes for rental again. Do it, say, over a 10-15 year period to allow for transition.

Maybe, maybe, a short exemption to allow people to rent out their family home for people living/working abroad, or who go into a care home, or those who temporarily have two homes when moving. Maybe a limit of 2/3 years but on condition the home is where the owners have previously lived.

Kill the buy to let market stone dead. It's the only way to get back to people being able to afford their own homes, whether to buy or to rent. Take out the profiteers from the market.

IwasDueANameChange · 28/04/2025 15:36

Individuals don't need to own second properties to provide a rental market.

The rental market should be provided by:

  • councils
  • housing associations/community trusts
  • pension fund vehicles

i would allow some exceptions to allow individuals to rent out 1 owned property including:

  • serving military posted abroad or living on a patch
  • individuals provided with housing through their employment (e.g. University halls staff, religious leaders, school boarding house staff
  • elderly or unwell people who've been moved into hospital or care home.
BlueandWhitePorcelain · 28/04/2025 15:51

SpringSunshineanddaffodils · 27/04/2025 20:54

That cyclist was in the wrong, they absolutely should be following the highway code.

But it seems unfair to bring back road tax just for cyclists when no-one else has to pay it. Everyone, including cyclists, already pay for the roads through their council tax. Why make cyclists pay extra?

As for insurance, cars can do a LOT more damage to other people and property than bikes can.

Show quote history

Cyclists pay extra? Motorist have to pay VAT on the purchase of their new car, vehicle tax and taxes on petrol/diesel. I suspect the amount of road tax cyclists pay towards roads, pales into insignificance, compared to motorists and especially owners of new cars?

DurinsBane · 28/04/2025 15:52

Keeping cats contained in a house. I think that is cruel to the cats. If you don’t want them to roam, don’t get them.

taxguru · 28/04/2025 15:53

IwasDueANameChange · 28/04/2025 15:36

Individuals don't need to own second properties to provide a rental market.

The rental market should be provided by:

  • councils
  • housing associations/community trusts
  • pension fund vehicles

i would allow some exceptions to allow individuals to rent out 1 owned property including:

  • serving military posted abroad or living on a patch
  • individuals provided with housing through their employment (e.g. University halls staff, religious leaders, school boarding house staff
  • elderly or unwell people who've been moved into hospital or care home.
Edited

Gordon Brown's government were planning to allow pension funds to hold residential properties, but he blocked it and the law to allow it didn't happen. Just another of his mistakes, but one which is often forgotten as the lack of housing wasn't such a big issue 25 years ago!

DurinsBane · 28/04/2025 15:56

SpringSunshineanddaffodils · 27/04/2025 16:56

Say you're given a council house in the 1990s or 2000s because you need one. Your children are young, you're struggling to afford to live etc etc. During this time, there's plenty of council houses to go round. You're given this house at a very low rent, subsidised by the tax payer. Fair enough.
Fast forward to the 2020s. There's a housing crisis, families are living in bedsits or cramped into one bedroom flats. You're all good though. Your children have left home by now, you're sitting pretty in a nice 3 bedroom council house, with two empty rooms and a nice big garden, just you and hubby. You could even rent some rooms out if you wanted and make money. You've had time to save up, work your way up in your job so you're financially comfortable. You are paying a tiny amount of rent, say 150pw which you can more than afford, while the family down the road are paying private rent of £1200pcm for a two bedroom flat.
You decide to buy this house you have paid very little for over the years, and the council sell it to you at a very low price, say £89k. Houses of this size in your area are easily going for £300k+
After five years, you can now legally sell this house, for market rate. You sell the house you were given at a very low price because you were hard-up, to help you out, built with taxpayers money, and you pocket a huge profit of over £200k, for simply being helped out one day 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, that house has GONE from the social housing market now. It can never be used to help another family in need, like you were helped. And it's very possibly been bought up by a landlord who will rent it out for extortionate private rent (in my area, 3 bed houses re going for £1850pcm) to families in the same position you were once in.
Is this a fair use of houses built with taxpayers money to help people in need?
They should be there for people who NEED them. Under-occupancy is bad enough but they should absolutely not be for sale.

Show quote history

The max house discount is a bit under 120k. So you aren’t buying a 300k house for 80 odd k

Redpeach · 28/04/2025 16:02

BlueandWhitePorcelain · 28/04/2025 15:51

Cyclists pay extra? Motorist have to pay VAT on the purchase of their new car, vehicle tax and taxes on petrol/diesel. I suspect the amount of road tax cyclists pay towards roads, pales into insignificance, compared to motorists and especially owners of new cars?

Show quote history

Could that be because of the amount of road space cars take up, as well as wear and tear of the roads, compared to cyclists

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 16:06

MonteStory · 28/04/2025 08:42

Ah yes that must be it. Not science or research. They don’t want to upset that well known seat of power that is the cat owners lobby.

Show quote history

They clearly stated cats kill large amount of birds. Cats aren’t a native species in uk and the domestic cat population has rocketed over the years. It’s undeniable that they kill a lot of garden birds. It cannot be said this isn’t a problem and that it isn’t a contributing factor to Uk garden bird population decline.
It seems you’re in denial about this.

Crankyaboutfood · 28/04/2025 16:08

Kittyfur · 27/04/2025 08:43

Factory farming

the legal things done to sentient creatures boggle my mind. Thank you for this.

Havanaknights · 28/04/2025 16:14

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 16:06

They clearly stated cats kill large amount of birds. Cats aren’t a native species in uk and the domestic cat population has rocketed over the years. It’s undeniable that they kill a lot of garden birds. It cannot be said this isn’t a problem and that it isn’t a contributing factor to Uk garden bird population decline.
It seems you’re in denial about this.

Show quote history

They clearly stated cats kill large amount of birds.

They did say that. Then they went on to say they're not that worried about it, and other factors are much more concerning. Did you just read the one sentence? That's not a great way get information.

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 16:21

Havanaknights · 28/04/2025 16:14

They clearly stated cats kill large amount of birds.

They did say that. Then they went on to say they're not that worried about it, and other factors are much more concerning. Did you just read the one sentence? That's not a great way get information.

Show quote history

Many scientists in the uk including those that work for RSPB are cat owners. It’s not a stretch to say their research could be biased by wanting to find evidence to support that cats aren’t a problem. Sure, there are bigger environmental problems, but if cats are continuing to kill the remaining decimated garden bird population then it’s a problem. It would be slightly less of a problem if there were no overarching environmental problems.
It’s hogwash to say cats only kill the “doomed surplus”. There isn’t a surplus and I see with my own eyes how they’ll lie in wait for the bird parents to return to the nest to feed the chicks & pounce. If a cat is around when chicks fledge the nest they’ll simply kill every single one of them, strong or weak. It’s just what cats do. Maybe it is a good idea for cats to be kept indoors during nesting season.

DriveMeCrazy1974 · 28/04/2025 16:21

letsnotIRL · 27/04/2025 08:45

  1. Smoking or drinking or any type of substance abuse while pregnant.
  2. Social media before the age of 16.
  3. Illegal to become a parent without doing some sort of parenting course. Once woman has first scan, both parents should be sent for classes to ensure child safety at home.
  4. DP says smoking altogether should be illegal.
Edited

You really think that if somebody is going to hurt their child, or put them at risk, a course is going to prevent that? You're sadly mistaken. A person can pass all kinds of tests, convince a person in authority that they are a 'good' parent and still be abusive towards their child or put them in harm's way!.

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 16:26

JorgyPorgy · 28/04/2025 16:21

Many scientists in the uk including those that work for RSPB are cat owners. It’s not a stretch to say their research could be biased by wanting to find evidence to support that cats aren’t a problem. Sure, there are bigger environmental problems, but if cats are continuing to kill the remaining decimated garden bird population then it’s a problem. It would be slightly less of a problem if there were no overarching environmental problems.
It’s hogwash to say cats only kill the “doomed surplus”. There isn’t a surplus and I see with my own eyes how they’ll lie in wait for the bird parents to return to the nest to feed the chicks & pounce. If a cat is around when chicks fledge the nest they’ll simply kill every single one of them, strong or weak. It’s just what cats do. Maybe it is a good idea for cats to be kept indoors during nesting season.

Show quote history

And yes if I was a cat lover and bird lover and rspb started saying “cats are a problem , they need to be kept indoors etc”, then I’d probably be disinclined to support that charity . It’s called not biting the hand that feeds you.
I like cats , I don’t own any, they do kill a lot of garden birds, strong or weak.