Too many people are getting dogs and seeing them as possessions or "money makers" by over breeding them for some easy cash or using the as "status dogs" using them to fight. When a dog is so cheap to buy, people are buying them then realizing they didn't want one in the first place. People are getting dogs free from people and selling them on. They are now treated as something with no value, as easy as if they were selling a mobile phone. This leads to unwanted dogs clogging up the kennels taking up time and money because of irresponsible owners. By making everyone licence their dog, this would weed out people who actually care and love their dogs. By having a breeding licence with vet check and behavioral expert, this will stamp out deformities caused through inbreeding and stop the aggressive gene passing on to the next generation, thus reducing the risk dramatically of "dangerous dogs". It is very important for the BSL to be banned as no dog should be targeted and killed because of what breed it is. You wouldn't go and jail or kill all murderers children because of what their parents did... so why do it to a dog? It can't help that it was born and there is no proof to say that dog will grow up aggressive. This should be abolished and every dog tested separately and treated as individual cases. If you really wanted to stop dangerous dogs and the suffering of dogs happening all across the UK, there is no excuse. Act now and stop the suffering!

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.

For close to a decade, Isabella cleaned ex-immigration MP Mark Harper's home for £22 per week - as well as a number of other politicians. When her undocumented status was revealed, she became a pawn in a political point scoring battle and the focus of a national media campaign which resulted in Mark Harper resigning. As none of the MPs that Isabella worked for were criminalised, the same spirit of kindness ought to be immediately extended to the hard working Acevedo family. We’re asking Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to do the honourable thing and grant citizenship to this lady and her family, whose lives have been turned upside down by this whole affair. Isabella Acevedo has since been forced into hiding, her family is being torn apart and they are facing destitution having lost their income. The hard working Acevedo family have spent close to 15 years in London - building a modest life. During this time, Isabella never had any sick pay, never had any holiday pay and earned less the minimum wage. Despite the difficulty, she was able to provide for her small family and create a home and life in London. All of this is now at risk of being destroyed as result of the damaging politics of Theresa May and Mr Harper. Please sign this petition and support the Acevedo family in their struggle to stay together, to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates. More information: http://legaldefencefund.wordpress.com/about/ ** A campaign to stand with Isabella Acevedo and others in similar circumstances was collectively launched in February. Supporters include: No One Is Illegal; Campaign Against The Criminalisation Of Communities; National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation Campaigns; Tawantinsuyu Nation; Myrdle Court Press; Defend The Right To Protest; Precarious Workers Brigade; Unity In The Community; Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Undio Meru; This Is Not A Gateway; 3 Cosas Campaign; Movimiento Jaguar Despierto; Justice For Domestic Workers; Latin American Women's Aid; El Telefono De La Esperanza UK

The Bombed Out Church is an Iconic Space in the City of Liverpool; it represents many of the struggles of the City over decades. It's not a simple a shell - It is a living, working monument to the people of Liverpool.

• Anglers generally fish for a day so parking and access is required for at least 8 hours at a time. • Angling is a sport recognised by the government and funded by sport England http://www.sportengland.org/funding/ngb_investment/whole_sport_plans_2013-17.aspx in Exeter alone there are 1,700 club members. • Many other local authorities work with their local Angling Clubs to encourage Angling for its widely known health benefits (http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/sites/resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/files/Making_the_most_of_community_waters.pdf) and economic benefits for the local area (http://resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/project_reports/final_report_2012) • Over the years the Council has eroded our ability to fish the River Exe throughout the town through the introduction of residents and short stay parking. • As members of the Exeter and District Angling Association we pay Exeter Council for fishing rights to the River Exe in various areas and the Exeter Canal. The club also owns the fishery rights at Weirfields with the sole access and parking facility available being the Clapperbrook car park. Without access to suitable parking we are unable to exercise these rights.

The magnificent Brighton Hippodrome needs your help to save it from being wrecked. It is a unique theatre building, listed Grade II* by English Heritage because of its historical and architectural significance. It was converted into a variety theatre in 1901/02 by Frank Matcham, the leading theatre architect of the time. It is one of only three theatres of its type in the country. It is of national importance. After closing as a variety theatre in 1965, it was a bingo hall until 2007. The stunning interior, however, is still in remarkable condition, with very little deterioration. Nonetheless, the Hippodrome is top of the Theatres Trust list of Theatre Buildings at Risk. Suddenly, in mid 2013, a proposal to convert the building into an eight-screen cinema emerged. The plans involve demolishing the stage, the fly-tower, all the back-stage facilities, the stalls and the orchestra pit. Without these it ceases to be a theatre. Please sign the petition to help to keep it intact. English Heritage has a statutory responsibility to protect listed buildings. It says any changes should be reversible. The proposed changes will make this impossible. No one so far has tried to produce a scheme for restoration for its real purpose: live performance. It would be a national scandal if the opportunity to save the Hippodrome were squandered because of misinformation and short-term gain. Please sign this petition to allow the Our Brighton Hippodrome campaign to produce that missing theatre proposal, for presentation to the Council, to English Heritage and the developers. We have the knowledge, we have the experience and we have the contacts. All we need is time. Read about the campaign, see the full details of our objection and see pictures of the Hippodrome Website: www.ourhippodrome.org.uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/ourbrightonhippodromepage Twitter: https://twitter.com/ourhippodrome The developer’s plan for conversion (not restoration!) to a multi-screen cinema: www.brightonhippodrome.co.uk/

BBC3 caters for the least represented group (16-34 year olds) at a time when youth culture has few opportunities to engage in the mainstream BBC3 offers great entertainment and informative programming designed for this underrepresented group. BBC3 should not be sidelined.

This petition is a direct response to the perception that we cannot change the system which already exists. Even if it isn't fit for purpose, up to date with the modern world, or representative of most of the electorate. We can! The promise of parliamentary debate on any petition which reached 100.000 signatures was a brave manifesto promise by the conservatives, but without some significant changes in the way the commons work, these petitions will fall on deaf (or absent) ears. We live in an age of technology and information, many embrace it, many fear it. It is an age where almost everything you do is done on line. Whatever your personal feelings about it, the internet is here to stay, and has the so far untapped potential to allow YOU unprecedented control over YOUR life, and the direction of politics in real time. We have social media which is acting as a lightning rod, by allowing us to display our righteous indignation at policy's which we don't agree with, but with no effect whatsoever. How many would bother to sign a petition which WOULD be heard by those that create all of our futures? Internet petitions are branded "slacktivism" by the press, and yet many of us who walk in the middle of the road, or the "silent majority" fear taking part in any more pro active activism, because of the disproportionate response by the state to peaceful protest. Also in these austere times many simply cannot afford to take the time to participate in politics, except by signing these e- petitions, and going out to vote once every 4 or 5 years. At these times you are faced with a choice; to support one of 3 main parties, because it supports something which you are passionate about, even though you do not support all of the manifesto, give your vote to a fringe party, or like 45% of the electorate, not bother at all. If these changes were implemented then that would no longer need to be the way. At present there is no record (accessible to the public) of attendance in the commons except for voting figures. This is not acceptable, as the public must be able to see whether their MP has attended any debate which they have petitioned for, and for general transparency, as promised by every incoming government. All MPs are public servants, paid by the public purse, and, as we're reminded when we call HMRC, DWP, or any other government body, we are all customers of the state, and as customers we are entitled be listened to, and served well. We demand a certain level of service for our taxes,and as customers, as voters and most importantly as Humans, we demand the right to determine how we live, and have our voice heard! Its time to accept your "invitation to join the government of Britain" (This was the title of the Conservative manifesto 2010) "People have been shut out of Westminster politics for too long. Having a single vote every four or five years is not good enough – we need to give people real control over how they are governed. So, with a Conservative government, any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament". "The Big Society runs consistently through our policy programme. Our plans to reform public services, mend our broken society,and rebuild trust in politics are all part of our Big Society agenda. These plans involve redistributing power from the state to society; from the centre to local communities, giving people the opportunity to take more control over their lives". "Big Society; our reform plans require a social response in order to be successful. So building the Big Society is not just a question of the state stepping back and hoping for the best: it will require an active role for the state. The state must take action to agitate for, catalyse and galvanise social renewal. We must use the state to help remake society". The above are all excerpts from the Conservative party manifesto, printed before winning the 2010 general election. They all seem to say very much the same as this petition, and yet more and more of the people I speak to, feel the same as me, that they have less and less freedom, power and control over the way they are governed. Apathy is a dangerous thing because it shows a lack of hope. A lack of hope is acceptance of that which makes you unhappy. Acceptance of unhappiness is surrender. Once surrender has been accepted, it is irrevocable.

The Jam Butty Camp has provided generations of Salfordian school children with the experience of a holiday by the sea, many of which would have never had the chance of a holiday under normal circumstances. Over the years it has supported our City and so when under attack we come to its aid and in turn support it. The camp is just as much a part of Salford as the Civic Centre you all inhabit, and should be protected at all costs. The purpose of this facility is just as relevant today as it was when it was first set up, and by the councils own admission the City and its people are suffering from the austerity cuts, and for many children this will be the only chance they have of having a holiday away from City life. This camp holds a special place in the hearts of many Salfordian's and should be immune to the Councils cuts on the grounds it provides a special service to Salford which is priceless.

We need to commemorate those people who helped others by their selfless efforts to improve the lot of the many.

There are at least 9 groups which use the library from tiny tots to the elderly - including knitting groups, family history group, creative writing groups, toddler groups and even wool spinning. The computers enable the unemployed without internet access at home to search for work as the job centre requires them to do. The buses from St Just to Penzance have recently been cut and the prices raised. St Just is a growing community with a new housing estate just built which will house many people who will benefit from a local library. Tourist use the library in summer for computer access and the valuable local knowledge of our librarians. Your cuts will mean the library is only open for one full day and two half days. This is planned to happen in June - just in time for the height of the tourist season!

Engagement with politics happens for the vast majority of people through radio and television, particularly on popular programs such as Question Time. The lack of diversity amongst MP's is a problem for the UK. The lack of diversity in our political programming is a linked problem. Politics should not be the sole domain of well educated, white men. Nor should political commentary, debate and discussion.