Dr Lewis is the ONLY MP in the house of commons who is only accessible through snail mail, the internet revolution of the last century hasn't made it to his office yet. There is a whole generation of voters who might never have written a letter. By not allowing people to contact him by e mail he is denying the electorate access and a voice to their local MP. Having spent over 10 years working in development in rural Afghanistan I have returned to the UK to discover my local MP is less contactable than an Afghan MP. We should have held some cash back from our 'Afghan democratisation endeavour' to help our local MP get on the web! As the government website itself says "email is a very convenient way for people to communicate" and encourages people to e mail their MP. In the New Forest we are unable to do this. E mail enables fast, immediate conversations with those who should be wanting to hear our voice, not silence it. I am not the first to notice the luddite in our midst http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3471687/Julian-Lewis-MP-REFUSES-communicate-constituents-online-regards-emails-insecure-prefers-communicate-letter-fax.html Please sign

As stated no member of parliament that could be deemed fraudulent should be allowed to decide what laws pass through the legislative system

This should go a long way towards generating mutual understanding, rebuilding the trust of Junior Doctors and the public ... and hopefully bring about a solution.

In May 2015 the electorate of Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross returned Dr Paul Monaghan as their MP, a massive swing of 27 percent had unseated the sitting Lib Dem MP, John Thurso. Incredibly less than twelve months later and following an electoral process that allowed three Lib Dem Hereditary Peers to determine his selection, John Thurso again became a Hereditary Peer in the House of Lords with the title of Viscount Thurso. The fact that John Thurso can now be in a position to affect the democratic will of his successor is an affront to democracy that totally unacceptable in a modern democracy in the 21st century.

Argyll and Bute council over the past few years have consistently acted against the wishes of the communities they were meant to serve. We now find that they have promoted Mr. Cleland Sneddon to the most senior council officer post of Chief Executive Mr. Sneddon in one of his first acts when arriving at Argyll and Bute Council was to try and close 26 rural schools which would have destroyed the fragile communities that they represented. Our elected officials supported him in his actions and it was only the concerted efforts of the communities concerned that stopped the process in its tracks, by showing just how wrong he and the council were in their calculation of the costs and effect of the closures. Mr. Sneddon chooses not to live within Argyll and Bute, but to commute from his home within the central belt. He has worked with the elected officials to oppose community projects such as Castle Toward, and as a result has assisted in the decline of the population of the region. This petition calls for Argyll and Bute council to reverse the decision to promote Mr. Sneddon to the position of Chief Executive. It also calls for the Scottish Government to intervene in the running of Argyll and Bute council. To examine the impact of the current management of the council on the population of the area, and to consider all options in improving the lot of the population of Argyll and Bute. We the undersigned have no confidence in Argyll and Bute Council having the skills and ability to manage the region, and call for government intervention and assistance in providing a council fit for purpose for its long suffering communities.

First, there was the evidence that the Conservative party broke the law in three key by-elections. Now, the party faces allegations that dozens of its MPs broke the law to win their seats in the 2015 general election itself. The party, already under investigation over its campaign spending, now faces calls for an investigation into possible criminal conspiracy. But will it be held to account? The Director of Public Prosecutions says they do not have the power to investigate but they may ask the police. If there is enough pressure placed upon them, perhaps they will and regardless to your political persuasion, surely it is the right of the British population to have a fair democracy?

Going to war affects us all and is something that must be debated and voted on in Parliament. Mr Cameron says Parliament should not make the decision as MP's are "ill-informed" We cannot allow our country to be high-jacked in this way by Mr David Cameron. It is too easy for one man to be compromised or swayed by vested interests. A Parliamentary debate and vote is our safeguard against this.

Tory MP compares calls for financial transparency for MPs with a "ban on curtains" and George Osborne changes his mind on anti-money laundering checks. This government isn't serious about anything, never mind tackling tax avoidance: "The Chancellor has caved under pressure from influential Tory Charles Walker, who last week refused to reveal his tax returns George Osborne has agreed to make MPs exempt from anti-money laundering checks under pressure from moaning Tory backbenchers. ...Ministers will now move to exclude MPs from the watch lists in the forthcoming Bank of England bill. Mr Osborne caved under pressure from influential Tory backbencher Charles Walker, who has been pressing for the change for some months. Mr Walker, who chairs the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, last week threatened to table a bill banning curtains if he was forced to publish his tax returns." This is bullying tactics designed to try and cover up, the general public have to detail everything to the government and law or face the consequences. Not a problem if we have nothing to hide. So why should MP's who are paid by the people to do a job for the people be allowed to get away with it......

The resistance of certain politicians to force corporate sponsors to pay their fair share of taxes, in return for large amounts of money and manipulation of information, must be stopped. It is corrupt and means our country is being taken over by rich crooks who respect no laws other than their own. Google, Amazon, Macdonalds, Rupert Murdoch and the like are just a small example of these sponsors.

The Cabinet Office has responded to a petition on the parliament.uk website: Call a General Election in 2016. The wording of the response makes it clear that although over 100,000 signatures have been reached, the petition is unlikely to be debated: "The accusations made about the Government and Prime Minister in this petition are wrong, and the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act means no Government can call an early general election any more anyway. The Government and Prime Minister have never sought to mislead the public. Nonetheless, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which came into force in 2011 under the Coalition Government, removed the power to set the general election date, and therefore to call an early general election, from the Government and gave a power to the House of Commons to call an early general election in certain circumstances. An early general election can only be called under the Act if either a motion (as worded in section 2(2) of the Act) that there shall be an early parliamentary general election is passed by the House of Commons with at least two thirds in favour of the motion; or if a motion of no confidence (as worded in section 2(4) of the Act) is passed by the House of Commons and the House does not pass a motion of confidence (as worded in section 2(5) of the Act) in the Government or an alternative Government within 14 days. Aside from these triggers there is no way to replace the Government through an early General Election. Cabinet Office" Justifications for a vote of no confidence involve, but are not limited to: the victimisation of the disabled and working class, the erosion of public services, a blatant disregard for the value of our NHS workers, and the hypocrisy of a Government which moralises on tax evasion but fails to bring neither its own members nor its friends in big business to account, and a failing economy which is focused on financial irregularity and the dismantling of British industry. The British people do not deserve another 4 years of a Government which gained its mandate on a low percentage vote and promises which have now been broken. We urge you to be the catalyst for action and to press for a "No Confidence" vote in Parliament amongst your peers both within and without the party.

Shortfalls in taxation (I.e.the funding for public services) is directly attributable to the global tax policies of companies who think HOW they trade doesn't matter. We should not accept tax dodging as an inevitable consequence of free trade. Director and shareholder behaviour will only change when transglobals realise these aggressive and anticompetitive policies are unsustainable. Moving, with immediate notice, to 'name and shame' will help consumers to make informed choices in future, and will cost offending transglobals both new and loyal customers as well as their reputation with shareholders and markets. If shareholders cannot create ethical and sustainable policies on their own account, they will have to be encouraged by Governments to do so. As Government is aware, the EU The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive sets out a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures, containing five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning. This includes measures to deter profit shifting to a 'low / no' tax country, to prevent double 'non-taxation' of certain income, to prevent companies from avoiding tax when 're-locating' assets, to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes and the additional safeguard of the anti-abuse rule designed to counteract aggressive tax planning. As an absolute minimum measure today, Government should immediately escalate a 'name and shame' policy to encourage consumers to be aware, so consumers can use alternative brands or local companies who fairly pay taxes in markets they sell to. With Liam Fox looking to resurrect a new version of the dreadful TTIP or dubious CETA with the US, involving potentially highly contentious ISDS, we should demand to know why so many huge US companies play on this kind of uneven tax playing field, as well as make it clear that this is a global problem which individual nation states ARE willing to take on, in order to protect local competition and essential services for UK citizens. UK Government should take a lead in saying we welcome trade and business, but not at any price. Pay to play!! Irrespective of the status of Brexi by 2019, the UK MUST ensure that it applies the EU Anti Tax Avoiance measure from 1 January 2019 ,which provide the minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment collectively for UK and European businesses in competition with transglobals brands. In doing this, Government will need to distance itself from the antidemocratic influence of the far right press, as their vested interests are in continued tax avoidance loopholes, irrespective of whether their owners are British citizens, foreign born or foreign domiciled. The first priority must be to protect British companies and British public services.

The current parish boundaries were drawn up long before Beverley had a building boom, which saw the settlement grow into the continuous built-up area we now know. The separation into three parish authorities is now outdated, and no longer reflects the community. It also means that some residents living in Beverley, specifically to the North and the South of Beverley, do not have a say on Beverley Town Council because they belong to Molescroft Parish and Woodmansey Parish. In other words, the current community governance arrangements hinder effective local government. Residents on Lincoln Way and the surrounding area are unlikely to consider themselves as living in Woodmansey. Moreover, residents have expressed concern that their interests are not properly represented on Woodmansey Parish, as exemplified in said parish council’s decision to commission a Neighbourhood Plan that covers only the village itself. As for Molescroft, it forms part of Beverley, and its residents ought to have a say on the Town Council; however, this cannot happen whilst there is a separate Molescroft Parish Council. To sum up, the current community governance arrangements hinder community cohesion and effective local government by artificially splitting the town of Beverley into three parts. The above recommendations · improve community engagement · bring communities closer together · create better local democracy · result in more efficient delivery of local services We are, therefore, asking East Riding of Yorkshire Council to undertake a community governance review to ensure that community governance arrangements reflect local identities and facilitate effective and convenient local government.