The Financial Conduct Authority recently dropped it's review into Banking Culture, reportedly under alleged Government pressure (or leaning) as reported by the BBC., however this is denied by the treasury. I ask that we pressure the government to reinstate the review. McDonnell said: “This will be a huge blow to customers and taxpayers who are all still paying the price for the failed culture in the banking sector that’s been widely attributed to be among the main causes of the crash and the scandals over Libor and price-fixing.” He said the FCA was making a “dangerous and costly mistake”. “The chancellor therefore cannot stay silent on this issue. It’s time he used his influence to keep this review going. Otherwise he’s letting down the rest of us who bailed the banks out and also allowing a signal to be sent to carry on regardless. Given the scale and severity of the failings in the financial sector and the criminal behaviour shown by some banks, the scrapping of the FCA’s review into banking culture sends the wrong message at the wrong time,”. Also The review was included in the FCA’s business plan for 2015, but was dropped after an initial assessment found it difficult to compare different cultures inside banks. The decision to abandon the review follows the resignation of the FCA chief executive, Martin Wheatley, after the chancellor forced him out in July. A permanent replacement has not been named to take over from Wheatley, who had flagged his tough stance towards the industry by warning he would shoot first and ask questions later.

We The TAXPAYERS Need to Change UK Banking Culture and STOP Product Mis-selling, Dodgy Loans, LIBOR Rigging and Huge Bonuses. Jail Crooked ‘Fat Cat’ Bankers Don’t Reward Them! The Government’s Financial Conduct Authority has dropped a major investigation into bank pay, promotion, bonuses and other incentives. Osborne said he knew nothing about this - so SIGN this petition to ask him to reverse this decision! USA & Iceland jail crooked Bankers Vietnam shoots crooked Bankers The UK rewards crooked and inept Bankers! UK banks brought our country to it’s knees with a £1.3 TRILLION debt, and we, the taxpayer, bailed them out. It’s time for a change. We need to make banking accountable, responsible, fair and honest, AND, once more, COMPETITIVE. Dodgy and irresponsible bank lending and too much bank leverage led to the 2008 financial crash! How many times does the taxpayer/uk population have to be kicked? Had the Bankers not brought the country to its knees in 2008 what state would the NHS and other public services be in right now? - Better funded for sure. How deep would the cut's need to be, had it not been for the 10's of billions to keep Banks afloat due to fat cat greed and arrogance. The Bankers have stolen your money, robbed your pensions, over-stated their profits, manipulated their share prices and raised new capital under false pretences: Accusations any normal businessman would have been sent to prison for. From 2001 to 2013 - 100,000 small UK businesses were mis-sold hundreds of billions of dodgy loans by Clydesdale/Yorkshire Bank, RBS, Barclays Lloyds & HSBC related to a rigged/ non-existent Libor rate! These mis-sold loans loaded with massive hidden charges have destroyed many thousands of these businesses, and continue to do so. Some of the banks have washed their hands by offloading these loans to American vulture funds to break up these businesses. PPI Mis-selling affected many millions of us, but still the banks get away with it with new scandals continually surfacing. Banks were being brought to book for PPI, but the Government has now decided to water down/cancel it’s own investigation into banking culture. Sign this petition which asks George Osborne to restart the Financial Conduct Authority investigation into banking culture.

When so many people are reliant on food banks and tax credits and the number of people living on the poverty line is rising it is disgusting that we should be wasting money on subsidising cheap drinks for MP's.

Parents should continue to have the freedom to choose from a variety of local childcare providers: council, schools and private. Closing all the council-run nurseries will deny parents this choice. Some nurseries which are run by local schools do not open during the school holidays so this might not be a viable option for many parents, who would then be forced to move their children to privately-run nurseries. Furthermore, the council's current proposals will cause a significant amount of disruption, confusion and anxiety for a lot of pre-school children. UPDATE (18.12.15): (1) If you have already signed our paper petition, please don't sign this online petition as well! (2) North Tyneside Council will only accept petition signatures from people who live, work or study in the borough. If you don't have a North Tyneside postcode for one of these activities, please don't sign this petition. (3) Thank you for your support! There is more information about this campaign on the Facebook page "Save North Tyneside Children's Centre Nursery".

It is essential that people's lives recover speedily,lessons learnt and infrastructure updated.

64% of us don't want student loans to be privatised - the government needs to listen. This plan doesn't make financial sense and needs to be scrapped. Martin Wolf from the Financial Times explains ‘Why the UK should not sell its student loan book’: “The UK Treasury is, it is reported, considering the sale of parts of its student loan book. This provokes a big question: when should the UK government sell such an asset – given that it is both immortal and solvent? The best answer has two parts. First, it must be believed that the asset would be better managed by the private sector. And, second, it must be believed that this superior private management can only be introduced by selling the assets – rather than introducing some type of private management contract. Thus, if the government decided to privatise the Royal Bank of Scotland, it should be because the value of the business would be higher under private ownership than it would be under public ownership. What the government paid for RBS shares is irrelevant: those are sunk costs. Similarly, the case for selling the Royal Mail is that it would be more valuable as a private business than in government hands. What of the student loan book? Would a buyer be able to offer more to the government for this stream of income than it is worth in public hands? No, because no private party has a lower borrowing cost than the government, since the government is the most creditworthy entity in the country. So the value of the student loan book to the government, given its low discount rate, is higher than to any potential private buyer. That might not be the case if the Treasury suffered from a genuine – as opposed to a purely artificial – borrowing constraint. In that case, the marginal cost of borrowing might be much higher than the average cost. That could justify selling existing assets, to replace them with more valuable assets. But the government suffers from no such borrowing constraint. So why do it? It is yet another example of a bigger problem: the manic concentration on the government’s overall debts – the totemic public debt ratio – rather than the whole balance sheet. Selling the book flatters the net public debt level in the very short term. Yet who would be impressed with a company that reported only its debts, but not its assets? It is not a sensible way to manage one’s activities. The student loan book should be left exactly where it is."

The steel industry is recognised by the government as fundamental to a national industrial strategy. It feeds important high earning industries such as ship building, automotive, aeronautic, energy production, construction & transport. "The industry is highly efficient, innovative, investing in new equipment, has high skill/high pay jobs and exports high grade products globally" (Gareth Stace, Director UK Steel, Select Committee proceedings) Too many times in recent decades we have opted out of crucial activities to a point where our ability to service the country has suffered. No more opting out Mr Javid!! Sign this petition and show your support for the companies and workers who are vital to the UK's prosperity, and were rightly immortalised in the Olympic Opening Ceremony 2012.

The proposals were developed in consultation with the local community, prioritising feedback from rough sleepers at the group's weekly Love Kitchen. Love Activists hope to gather 1250 signatures to force the council to debate the proposals at a full council meeting. Reasoning/Rationale: 1. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that when local authorities make vulnerability assessments, a 'homeless person' should be compared with an 'ordinary person who is at risk of becoming homeless'. There is no doubt that any homeless person is 'significantly more vulnerable' than an ordinary person, therefore everybody living on the street should be assessed as being in priority need. The judgement also made it clear that while councils are often under huge financial strain, this must not be used as an excuse for avoiding their legal duties. To guarantee duty of care and legal obligations are met, all local authorities must provide permanent housing for anybody living on the streets. 2. Housing first pilot project had a 70% success rate in Brighton & Hove - helping 7 out of 10 people with high support needs into accommodation. 3. Extended winter provision: additional services provided over a period of time e.g. every night from November to March. If the material resources exist to provide shelter from a severe weather emergency, economic arguments against keeping the shelters open are not as powerful as the humanitarian ones for opening them. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') Humanitarian Response: SWEP should be applied responsibly to prevent death at all times; 3 consecutive nights at zero or below is the minimum requirement. Local authorities should consider factors such as wet weather and wind chill, snow coverage and duration of extreme weather when looking at provision. Preventing deaths on the streets is the aim of the protocol, so if this demands more beds and a longer response the local authority should do everything it can to prevent harm to individuals. Economics cannot change the weather any more than economics can determine people's relative vulnerability to each other. 4. It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. Severely windy, wet weather is an emergency, as is extremely hot, dry weather. Homeless Link offers advice and guidance to BHT, St Mungo's and Brighton & Hove City Council. Currently their minimum definition of severe weather is when the temperature drops below zero for three consecutive nights. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') There is no strict definition of what counts as ‘severe weather’. Local authorities should proactively identify any weather that could increase the risk of serious harm to people sleeping rough and put measures in place to minimise this. This includes extreme cold, wind and rain. It is important not to presume when, or in what form, severe weather will occur. Sleeping rough is never comfortable, but the suffering is exacerbated by all elements It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. ('Homeless Link') http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Winter%20provision%20guidance%202015-16.pdf 5. If this doesn't happen there will be no truly affordable places to live and more people will inevitably become homeless. 6. This would make use of empty properties, keep people safe and avoid waste of tax payers money, private money and time spent on security, policing and court costs. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') In addition to the direct risk associated with severe weather, local authorities should work alongside other local statutory and voluntary services to identify and mitigate actions taken during severe weather that can increase risk for those sleeping rough. For example, people may choose to sleep in riskier places, such as in bins, where they can find cover. They may also enter buildings or property illegally, or increase their substance use as a coping mechanism. 7. No single authority can successfully move to implement all of these measures, because if they 'move first', their service capacity would risk being overwhelmed by people migrating to that local authority. Therefore, we must work towards implementing these measures nationally. [email protected] twitter.com/loveactivists_ facebook.com/loveactivistsbrighton

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

The 567% increase in fees payable to the Care Quality Commission for Primary Care registration will financially cripple many Primary Care Providers and will negatively impact upon service provision. Practices could find themselves in a position where they are closing branch surgeries in order to move down a bracket in the fee structure, i.e. pay less fees for one site rather than two. This will adversely affect the quality of care we provide, as practices will have no option but to cut services and personnel in order to meet the extortionate fee currently being suggested. Such an action would be damaging to the patient/doctor relationship and would discriminate against patients with disabilities/those unable to travel to other branch sites. This would conflict with the CQC commitment to ensure “that people receive safe, effective, compassionate and high quality care”. We respectfully request a review of the Primary Care Registration Fees structure, as we do not feel that a rise in fees of 567% is justified in any way.

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email [email protected] with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

It is important to the economy and confidence in Sierra Leone that British Airways reinstates flights to Sierra Leone. When the Ebola crisis hit Sierra Leone major airlines stopped flights. This led to the loss of thousands of jobs. It is now 10 days since Sierra Leone was declared Ebola free but British Airways have yet to re start flight http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/destinations/freetown/flights-to-freetown?clickpage=destinations-en--africa--index&kmtag=c&ban=||ACC|1|LNK15|||||CampID||||L2||||||| S/Leone in talks over London-Freetown flights Par KC/as/APACréé le 2015-11-23 16:22:17 The authorities in Sierra Leone are reportedly in talks for a new flight linking their capital Freetown and London as repeated requests for British Airways (BA) to resumes its services remain fruitless. BA first suspended its flights to Freetown on August 2014, claiming fears of a possible transmission of the Ebola virus. That followed reports of cases where the disease was reported in foreign countries through air travel. However, over two weeks after Sierra Leone was declared free of the virus, the airline is reluctant to resume flights to the country. The new flight in the pipeline, according to the pro-government Torchlight newspaper in Freetown, which on Monday criticized the British government over BA`s continued reluctance, will be provided by Kevin McPhilips Travels. About seven airlines subsequently suspended flights to Freetown during the peak of the epidemic, but almost all of them, with the exception of BA, have since resumed flying to Freetown. BA has been a major concern because it was the only one linking directly the two cities. “Sierra Leoneans felt abandoned by the former colonial masters when even an attempt by Gambia Bird Airlines to resume direct flights was met with stiff rejection from the British government,” the Torchlight said in its Monday editorial. The paper said if all goes as planned, the new airline is scheduled to commence flight between Lungi International Airport in Freetown and Gatwick in London in December. But, Tony Rogers, who in February 2015 worked at the British-built Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Center in Freetown, finds the suspension of the flights as an “unjust” attempt at isolating the country. Rogers therefore set up an online petition on the site 38 Degrees. “I understand that there has been an enormous economic impact of loss of tourism and commercial trade by the airlines such as British Airways. “I understand that some airlines have returned but British Airways remains sadly reticent regarding reinstating flights,” the UK nurse told APA in an emailed statement. KC/as/APA - APANEWS