I think it speaks for itself as to why it is important. Bradford Council claim to be in line with all other Councils. How is £85 in line with £10 for exactly the same thing? The Council made 3.33 million pounds doing this in the council tax year 2012/2013. Un-waged people are struggling just to pay council tax they also have to pay bedroom tax if they are renting privately, benefits do not take these taxes into consideration and neither do Bradford Council. Bradford Council have already announced Council Tax rises for the 2 years to come. During the Council Tax year 2012/2013 Bradford Council summonsed 1 in 4 households for Council Tax. With the current economic climate more and more people will be summoned as less people are able to afford to pay Council Tax, why should people already struggling be charged £85 per summons whilst others are charged only £10 for exactly the same thing?

Millions of tonnes of food, particularly fresh food, that is perfectly good for human consumption are destroyed every year by supermarkets because it is in some way "blemished". Meanwhile those living in poverty, housed or on the streets, are going hungry or even malnourished here in the UK. This is utterly immoral and must cease NOW.

The cuts mean that in the cases of divorce and separation the spouse denied legal aid will be the one who cannot afford to go out to work because they are looking after young children. The spouse who can afford legal representation is the more likely to win the custody battle. In very many cases he or she is really not the best parent to look after the child/ren and the heartache for both the children and the better placed parent will be grossly unfair. This matter should most definitely NOT be a case whereby the parent who has the money to spend on the case is the victor. Lives will be severely blighted. Many in particular only see their children as a key to the door of the family home and do not have the children's interests at heart. The withdrawing of legal aid in these cases is grossly inhumane and really must not go ahead.

This is important to me, because there's a lack of awareness that men can get raped or sexually assaulted despite the recent male rape attack in Bristol. According to UK charity Mankind 1 in 29 have reported being sexually assaulted and 1 in 20 have been affected by sexual violence. There's a huge denial that male rape exists, rooted in mistaken ideas that 'real' men can fight off an attacker, women cannot rape men, and male rape only happens in prison. These mistaken beliefs make it hard for male survivors to come forward, because they are left with feelings of shame, confusion and self blame for what happened. That's why we need the council and police to publicly recognise male rape to make it easier for male rape survivors to get the help they need and to report the crime.

Currently, any Healthcare Professional causing the negligent death of a patient is not legally obliged to be Open, Honest & Transparent with bereaved relatives or to refrain falsifying the deceased patient’s medical records. Please sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34926 Robbie's Law gets it's namesake from Robbie Powell, who died an unnecessary death at the age of ten, 22 years ago. Due to this loophole in the law, at every turn his death has been swept under the rug. His family and thousands of others have endured years of grief, injustice and frustration. Robbie’s family continues to campaign 22 years on, not only for justice for Robbie, but to ensure other families don't have their grief exacerbated by the dishonesty of the medical profession. Please sign http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34926

Peaceful protest is at the cornerstone of our democracy and threatening to prosecute protesters for exercising this fundamental right undermines that notion of democracy and what is a civilised society. Protesters scaled the walls of the cooling towers in a week long protest at West Burton, Nottinghamshire. They hoped to raise awareness of the continued use of fossil fuel based power stations and the damage they do to our environment. EDF Energy is trying to scare people from demonstrating against using fossil fuels for our energy needs. By making an example of the West Burton protesters they hope that they will be able to limit the damage to their public reputation and go on building new fossil fuel based power stations. The right to non-violent protest is of fundamental importance in our democracy. We cannot let corporations from silencing our democratic rights to protest. We need to demonstrate to EDF Energy that if they continue with the prosecutions they will damage their brand and cost shareholders money in lost profits. We as citizens and as consumers have the power to make EDF Energy think again and drop the charges.

There is no economic argument for the closure of Magilligan. The Prison Service of Northern Ireland argues that the prison has outlived its economic usefulness but the additional cost incurred by building a new facility on the Magheraberry site destroys this argument. Closure of the prison would have a catastrophic impact on the local economy. This part of the North West has already been ravaged by the economic recession and the loss of a further 440 jobs would be devastating.The spending power of those employed in the prison would be lost to the local economy and in addition, the goods and services that the prison buys from local suppliers will stop causing further pressure upon already struggling businesses and potentially causing even more job losses. This area simply cannot afford to lose the prison.

It is vitally important that the people of Scotland have access to justice as fairly as possible. This is a cost cutting exercise only and takes no account of the needs and aspirations of the people, including many of the most vulnerable, of Scotland.

John Major and other senior party members pledged to return the donations if Nadir was found guilty of fraud - this was a Conservative party commitment which they should honour.

I am one of those unfortunate people who - through no direct fault of their own - have 'lost their home'. For over 'fourteen years' (following on from buying our house/10 years) we have rented 'four' different houses. All of them - particularly the first 'three' came with a bizarre range of difficulties and problems culminating with us having to up- sticks and move on to somewhere less troubled! Our problems included immense noise problems, drug busts by the police to our immediate neighbours, racist remarks, drunkenness, barking dogs, failure of landlord to hold to the Tenancy agreement, theft, anti social behaviour: and blatant promises (by Estate Agents) of improvements that never materialised and so on. (I have detailed documentation on most of these difficulties). I often feel that renting tenants (particularly 'private' tenants) are 'used' primarily to pay the mortgage on the landlords second, third (etc) house but with 'nothing' in return beside broken promises and a very 'poor' service all round! The TV channels are currently running repetitive adverts on 'landlords insurance' but nothing is seen about the much needed 'tenants insurance'; this insurance should be included as a part of the rental agreement. I have often been made to feel like a second class citizen with little or no rights on many occasions. Surely, even if only to attempt to bridge the increasing gap (chasm) between the haves and the have-nots'- their should be made available a strict set of rules for 'landlords'. Rules which would protect tenants, provide us with a fair say on renting issues without the fear of reprisals or evictions, and to discontinue the poor practise of 'money for nothing' for bad landlords.