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.

The law is a discriminatory one which relies on an individual police officer's judgement and, as such, is open to abuse. The police officer is open to criticism for misuse of the order and under 16 year old's are vulnerable to overzealous application and miss-accusations. The discriminatory nature of the order encourages the hatred and fear of young people and allows some to feel justified in discriminatory attitudes toward them. It encourages those who have suffered at the hands of badly behaved youths to believe that they are all like that and to become more afraid. It will only serve to alienate young people and make them feel that the police are there simply to control them but not to protect them. Already young people in Bangor are avoiding going out to the cinema and to after school clubs for fear of being caught in the curfew or of being beaten up by the marauding gangs that this order implies are on the loose in the city center. Bangor is a lovely historic place with much to offer young and old alike. It suffers from very little anti-social behavior apart from a very few people in limited areas and the usual after pub and club problems present in all cities. It is suffering in the downturn from an empty high street (the longest in the country) but there was no rioting in Bangor last year, the out of town JJB sports, PC World etc were not ransacked as was seen in other towns and cities across the UK, so why Bangor? There was no consultation with the public or even their elected representatives on the City Council. This is despite the ACPO guidance that there should be consultation with the effected community and a Rowntree report, which concludes that these laws have only been effective where consultation and involvement had taken place. This law is badly worded, heavy handed, discriminatory and draconian and it should be stopped now!

The Channel Island of Sark has just 600 inhabitants. They lead a peaceful and historic way of life that has remained largely unchanged for hundreds of years. The islanders get around on bikes or by horse and cart - there are no cars or tarmac roads on the island. It is a unique and beautiful place, a rare piece of tranquillity in a chaotic modern world. But now the billionaire owners of The Telegraph newspaper, the Barclay brothers, are threatening that way of life. Twenty years ago, they bought the tiny neighbouring island of Brecqhou and built a huge mock gothic castle that looms over Sark. Ever since, they have been buying up every hotel, small business and piece of land they can get their hands on. The islands status as a tax haven means the brothers have to pay no tax on their fortune back to the UK. The Sarkees have been doing everything they can to resist their power over the island. In 2008, the Barclays tried to flood the island's first democratically elected government with their allies. When the islanders emphatically rejected them in favour of their own representatives, the brothers retaliated by firing everyone who worked in any of the businesses they had bought out - that amounted to a sixth of Sark's population losing their jobs. It doesn't end there. Those who speak out against the brothers' stranglehold on the island are publicly dragged through the dirt in the Sark Newsletter - a weekly propaganda piece written by the Barclays' lieutenant, Kevin Delaney. The islanders recently told the Guardian and BBC that they live in fear in a "culture of bullying and intimidation." The Barclay brothers company Sark Estate Management (SEM) has turned much of their good quality agricultural land over to vineyards, land that was traditionally used by the islanders for centuries for growing crops and grazing livestock. In November 2012 a peaceful protest at the Sark Mill vineyards against the spread of vines resulted in 120 Sark residents signing a petition asking the Barclays to reconsider their vineyard project but this was ignored. SEM continue to spray the vineyards with chemicals and residents fear for the health of Sark's pristine ecosystem and their fresh water supplies which come from under the ground. Sark is a dependency of the Crown but, so far, our government has left the islanders to fend for themselves. The Department of Justice has admitted that it has an "ultimate responsibility to ensure good governance" of Sark. They are aware of what's going on - former Justice Minister Lord McNally has already been to visit the island. It's time Lord Faulks, the new Justice Minister and Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, lived up to that responsibility. You can find out more about the situation in Sark in this recent Panorama show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01px74c/Panorama_The_Tax_Haven_Twins/ Or this earlier Today programme piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709518.stm

The age of criminal responsibility in England is one the lowest in Europe, and the statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people. The age of criminal responsibility needs to be reviewed in light of the standards set by the UN Convention and these international comparisons. Young children are simply not capable of the sophisticated mental reasoning required to be held fully responsible for criminal actions, and we need to take a far more "welfare based" approach in dealing with young people who commit serious crimes. Furthermore, there is concern among neuroscientists in this field that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is unreasonably low given the emerging understanding of how slowly the brains of children mature, and the evidence of individual differences suggests that an arbitrary cut-off age may not be justifiable.