I would like to ask you do something about the horrendous waste of resources regarding supermarkets and food packaging companies. Supermarkets own brand products are generally cheaper, but my observation is that this comes at the expense of using non recyclable packaging. All large companies even Aldi which gives a large well informed pledge to their commitment to the environment and yet at the same time most of their products packaging is non-recyclable? other large chains sell their own brand products too, again a lot of these seem to come also in non recyclable packages. In this day and age when we are being encouraged, and some do their utmost, to recycle as much as we can our bins are stuffed with this stuff which ends up in landfill- What is going on? why if some companies can do it then why not all. All our food should come this way - Also less of it too, as its totally unnecessary!

The so called 'National roll-out of fibre broadband' is being funded by public money and we - the public - need to be given full access to the matter. The BT Telephone service side of the business (which does the talking to customers ...) should be given access to the data, owned by BT Openreach, to ensure that any telephone user ... interested in using fast fibre access to the broadband network ... can obtain an honest and complete answer as to when, and by what method - and at what price - they will be provided with the connection capability to the fibre broadband network.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/child-protection-privatised

I am a parent that is continually under pressure to supply my children with state of the art technology in the form of these all singing all dancing smart phones. To be able to truly control my children's spending the only way I can do this is to overspend initially on a phone and go Pay As You Go. Then there is the problem of teenagers hassling for more credit. Pay as You go is expensive. The cost of these phones are extortionate and the tariffs are designed to maximise the income for the company and to encourage people to take out contracts. The contract price plans are attractive. You can get a decent phone and a decent price plan for a reasonable monthly outlay. It is an easy option. My daughters were signed up and on the whole it is fantastic. They choose the phone, they know they can't upgrade it for 2 years and they know how much they can use it. In theory. As parents it is perfect. We sign them up. We are responsible for the bill. That is the issue. We naively assume our children are responsible adults and will treat this service with respect. As parents we are giving our children, young children, this responsibility maybe a little too early. There are children out there running up huge bills for their parents through lack of understanding of the consequences. These children don't realise it can lead to family debt and they assume it only effect them. There is also the point where the whole account can be suspended for non payment. The whole family, where a job which relies on the phone, could be at risk. My daughter ran up a bill of £130. On contacting the provider we were offered no help. The phone company said what if in the case of emergency. With unlimited texts and 999 I don't see this as being a valid reason. They told me they don't offer a capping service and we were responsible for the amount. After all she used it. I believe this is purely profiteering on the part of the phone company. I believe it should be a shared responsibility between the phone company and the contract holder. I believe that if they offered a cap option then this would prevent children (and some adults too) from putting their families through financial hardship. It will teach our children limits. I, after all, do not want to be presented with another extortionate bill that I can't afford.

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

This petition is important for the simple reason that the Post Office is a vital part of the community in New Malden, and the only 'main' Post Office for a while around. Even a busy town like Kingston no longer has a main Post Office. The Post Office are trying to cut at least three, potentially four members of staff at the end of April, to be replaced by machines in Mid-May. The people of New Malden don't want machines to pay their bills - they prefer interacting with humans over the counter. DID YOU KNOW? Since 2012, if these plans are to go ahead, the Post Office will have lost 6 members of staff in 2 years - that's 50%! From 12 members of staff, to 6. Queues are already long enough now in New Malden Post Office, and it can't manage with 4 staff less. We need the Post Office to recruit new members of staff at New Malden Post Office to make up for this staff loss, and to, in effect, save New Malden Post Office. (See More at www.coombemonthly.co.uk)

A company called LuvMyDog.co.uk is selling these, As my MP I would like you to investigate this petition, and outlaw collars that cause dogs pain and discomfort. There appears to be absolutely no need for a collar like this to be produced. Please help me outlaw products that injure defenseless creatures in this way. https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/-/CBY/Joint%20statement%20ETDs%20and%20prong%20collars%20April%202014.pdf

It's important as greater numbers of people are being offered these contracts and a higher percentage of these people are young. If we don't provide decent working contracts for young people they have no hope for the future, and this is detrimental to a feel-good factor in an economic recovery. It is also treating people as commodities.

Currently they get away with not doing so and it can take more than 4 weeks to get monies owed from them. I know this as this is my experience. Banks can transfer monies instantly and credit payments quickly so why not utility companies. Here is my experience: When I switched from Scottish Power to Ovo (gas & electricity) I discovered that Scottish Power owed me over £600. I requested they pay this back but was told it would only happen once my final bill was done. I switched on 29th January and gave meter readings on that day to both Scottish Power and Ovo. However, its now March and they are still charging me on my bill (reducing my credit balance) even though they have closed my account (it says so online)! I spoke both with Scottish Power and Ovo and was told that even though I had submitted readings for gas & electricity to both companies, it could take 2 weeks for the network (presumably Transco etc) to confirm the readings. Only then could Scottish Power do my final bill and only then could OVO know for sure what starting readings to use. Scottish Power said once my final bill was confirmed they would then refund my credit balance but it could still take up to 4 weeks! This is a scandal. I made an official complaint to Scottish Power but they said it could 10 working days for someone to get back to me! yet another unacceptable delay. I tried speaking to the regulator but their automated telephone service cuts you off if you say you haven't given the utility company 8 weeks to resolve the situation! Why can't utility companies be made to speed the whole process up like banks have? An example is that when I pay salaries at work via BACS I get a text from my bank (the receiving account) within 10 seconds that the money is in my account! yes, I said 10 seconds, not 10 hours, days or weeks! Its time the companies were brought to account and made to reform. In my opinion the big companies should be split up as well. Scottish Power admits it receives around 75,000 complaints every quarter! Its on their website at https://www.scottishpower.co.uk/support-centre/service-and-standards/complaints/complaintsperformance Please support this campaign

We love science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). We think its worth celebrating the exciting possibilities it offers with the young people of the UK. We know how vital STEM is to understand our world and make it better. There is so much inspiring and important STEM work done in the UK, and more to do. That's why it makes us sad that companies which profit from weapons which kill people across the world, should be allowed a role at the Big Bang Fair. One of this year's sponsors, Doosan, is on financial blacklists because of cluster bomb manufacture, and yet you allow them space at your event. As well as the products they manufacture, BAE systems have been the subject of several corruption investigations. Are these really the sorts of groups we want involved in the education of children? Science and engineering should be about improving life, not taking it away - please ask the Big Bang Fair to drop the arms trade.

The rushed sale of the Co-operative Group Farms to the highest bidder would almost certainly mean that the land would be bought by venture capital or pension funds, who would have no interest in managing the land using co-operative principles and sustainable techniques. However, as the biggest UK land sale for decades - over 50,000 acres of land - this is also a unique opportunity to make a major contribution to sustainable UK food production and help young new farmers to access land. Like minded groups interested in buying the land (such as co-operatives and Community Farmland Trusts) will require time to put the necessary finances in place, to arrange a sale, and to find suitable tenants. The Co-operative Group board should allow time for initiatives to be planned and organised so that the co-operative management of the Co-op's farmland can continue. The founding values of the Co-operative are at stake here, and the Group will lose all credibility if it simply sells its farms to the highest bidder. Tell the Co-op board to remember its roots: "Don’t sell the soil from under our feet - fertilise the future instead!"

Senior executive remuneration in many large companies is out of control and in disrepute. Mutual and co-operative movements have the opportunity to show a different way, one that is much more in tune with the majority of their supporters. If those supporters are alienated, as they will be if this benefits package is not revoked, they will vote with their feet. This will make the demise of the Co-op Group much more likely.