Increasing numbers of homeless people are being arrested for begging around the country. In 2013-14, 2771 cases were brought before the courts, a 70% increase on the previous year. Police use an archaic law which deems those found begging to be 'idle and disorderly'. Begging was made a recordable offence in 2003 against the strong criticisms of civil rights groups and homelessness organisations. Those prosecuted can be fined up to £1000 excluding court charges when found with just a few pennies. Those who have 'gathered alms' (that is, accepted money, food or other material goods offered to them) can be prosecuted under this same law with the same consequences. Some people are kept in cells for several nights. Although begging in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence, if the person is already on bail for another case a simple arrest for begging can lead to imprisonment. Those who are fined will inevitably have to beg more to pay off these fines, risking further arrests and fines, a punishment which stands out in its absurdity. Punishing the destitute for trying to survive is both costly and morally abhorrent. It is a waste of tax payers' money which is spent paying police who 'catch people out' in organised undercover operations, as well as on court cases to prosecute them. The minimum cost of bringing one case to the Magistrates' Court is £1000, meaning that in the year 2013-14, bringing begging cases before the courts cost the taxpayer at least £2.777 million. This is money that could be spent helping people rather than punishing them. Police also routinely move homeless people on under part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) which gives police the power to confiscate property and exclude individuals from a particular area for up to 48 hours, with the officer also able to impose by what manner and route the person must leave. Failure to comply is a criminal offence which can result in a £2500 fine or 3 months in prison. Refusing to surrender your property is punishable by a fine of up to £500. The two conditions needed by officers to issue a dispersal order are firstly, that the constable has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder, and secondly, that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of (a) or (b)'. Given that begging is a crime considered 'idle and disorderly', the two laws in tandem essentially give police de facto power to exclude any homeless person from any area simply because they think it is likely that the person, being homeless, might beg there. The highly subjective definition of 'anti-social behaviour' as that which contributes or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed reinforces this and even with the decriminalisation of begging, would still give police the power to move on any homeless person from any area simply because they believe doing so is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of members of the public being distressed by seeing them. Seeing people forced to live on the streets is distressing to much of the public for good reason, but this compassionate distress means that under this definition a homeless person is considered to be exhibiting anti-social behaviour simply by existing visibly. The anti-social behaviour that causes the public distress is not caused by the homeless person however, but by the authorities' failure to provide people with shelter in a country that has 600,000 empty homes. As described by someone living on the street, being asked to move on when you have nowhere to go is like being asked to walk into a brick wall. These laws and their enforcement victimize vulnerable people who are already suffering the daily struggle of life on the streets or in insecure and unstable temporary accommodation. We believe that kicking someone for limping when it is you who cut off their leg is shameless and cruel. We believe that the government should be providing homes for the homeless, not handcuffs. We therefore call on parliament to repeal without replacement section 3 of the Vagrancy Act (1824), to amend part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to safeguard homeless people from its discriminatory use, and for an ultimate end to the criminalisation of homelessness by any and all other laws that may be newly concocted or dug up for this purpose. If you have an MP who may be sympathetic, get in touch with them to push this issue to parliament. We launched this petition at our demo at Brighton Magistrate's court on the 20th January.

Why in 2016 when the government are looking to make cuts, should they be immune to the same austerity they force so many others to live with? Last year a reported 1.1 million people were forced into using food banks, this year they are trying to force our NHS to do more, with less. They have already attacked the disabled, and raised tuition fees for those looking to further their education while at the same time taking a pay rise. Why should they get to claim personal expenses? Especially when the average MP salary is £67,060. The UK average salary is reported to be £26,500, and yet you and I have to pay for our own food, our own travel expenses, as well as our own day to day living expenses. Whilst I understand that staffing costs make up nearly three quarters of the total MP expenses budget, staffing and office costs as well as reasonable long distance travel costs should be managed by the IPSA. Any other personal claims simply shouldn't be allowed. Let's stand together and remind the Government they stand in office to serve the greater goods best interest and not their own.

Some say there is no alternative but Rochdale Borough Council could use just a portion of its £169.6m in useable reserves to avoid making the £37m worth of cuts over the next two years. Even the Government suggest that ‘local authorities lessen the impact of budget cuts by tapping into their huge reserve pots’ – Telegraph, 31st August. We call on the Labour group on Rochdale Borough Council to take these steps whilst councillors go out into the communities, workplaces and trade union branches to build support for a no-cuts budget and have a genuine consultation with the people of Rochdale. They could then make an appeal to other Labour councils to do the same, making the Tory government’s savage cuts unworkable. Jeremy Corbyn said in his election campaign that councils should stand together against the cuts. This is the direction that the Labour Party must go in to end austerity and safeguard our public services.

NORTH Herefordshire MP Bill Wiggin has been accused of helping tax-avoiding hedge funds set up shop on 'sunny offshore islands' in a recent edition of Private Eye. This should not be allowed because it can cause a conflict of interest & lead to bias in favour of companies they work for usually big corporation there should be a level playing field not just for the wealthy MP's are supposed to represent everyone in Society not just the privileged few!

It is of national importance that the renewal of Trident as a nuclear 'deterrent' should be put forward to the people of Britain. Using clear and concise language the arguments for and against its renewal should be debated and presented to the public so that they can make an informed decision about whether they wish to renew Trident or not. Trident's renewal is not an issue that can be decided by parliamentarians on our behalf, it does require the unequivocal support of the people, via direct democracy. Any decision that would have direct implications on our nation's present and future, to the extent that renewing our nuclear capabilities has, is of the highest importance and should only be decided on a one person one vote basis.

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.

Currently many members of his Wadebridge West believe he is not fulfilling his council duties while he serves as a Westminster member of parliament.

The future of NHS is a source of worry for a great swathe of the population. A huge majority of Doctors, experts and professionals linked with the NHS, see Jeremy Hunt's plans as a destructive force for a public service we all hold so dear. Many of his stats (such as the 20% increased likelihood of dying from a stroke at the weekend) have been called out as incorrect by those within the industry. As well as false media claims that those involved are quaffing champagne, whilst one doctor's payslip recently proved that it is possible to be paid as little as £2.61 an hour currently. The NHS is an important part of British culture and seen by many as one of the proudest achievements of Western democracy. The fact that it has currently been dragged into a slagging match at a national level, isn't the correct way to deal with such an issue. As it is a public service, and one that the public not only relies on but also holds in such high regard, the facts should be made public, with both sides allowed a say. Mr Hunt should show he holds the NHS is the same high regard as the public, by treating this situation with the respect it deserves and having an open public debate about these important issues.

It is imperative in a democracy that the electorate are informed by a news media that is unbiased and can effectively present news in a balanced way. It is concerning that staff at the BBC are appearing to manipulate the news and it is vital that this publicly funded institution is not using its position to abuse the public trust. The revelations in a recent blog by BBC producer Andrew Alexander, was very clear about how staff at the Corporation manipulated news to “make an impact.” This resulted in a member of the Shadow Front Bench Stephen Doughty, resigning live on air during the Wednesday 6th January 2016 edition of The Daily Politics. The blog went on to express how staff were delighted to have seen how this story was brought up by the Prime Minister in his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition. “As Andrew Neil handed from the studio to the Commons chamber we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn. "During our regular debrief after coming off air at 1pm we agreed our job is always most enjoyable when a big story is breaking – but even more so when it’s breaking on the programme” There is considerable disquiet that the BBC is not fulfilling its public duty to report the news in a fair and balanced way. This has come to the fore since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of The Labour Party. This blog by Andrew Alexander will cause concern everyone who cares about the unbiased reporting of the news.

Too many areas of service are being or have been run by G4S and rarely has any company had such spectacular failings yet they still win contracts

Mears helps the elderly to remain in their own homes. Elderly neighbours and relatives have found this service vital when they did not know who else to turn to. The cost is reasonable and the workmen are very good and caring.

Trident has little or no relevance in the 21st-century world - even for those with a belief in the so-called nuclear deterrent. There has not been an informed public debate on Trident for many years and few politicians appear seriously to consider the issue, simply wrapping themselves in the flags of patriotism and strength in support of an absurd, expensive and dangerous programme. Trade unionists, shamefully, are seeing the issue in terms of jobs. Have they not heard of swords into ploughshares? Jeremy Corbyn and other abolitionists are portrayed as crazed and unrealistic, of putting the country in grave danger. Yet there are politicians of all parties who believe we should not renew Trident (Michael Portillo and Lord Owen to name but two, neither in office now of course but with considerable experience of the issue) and many in the military. And the public? If we knew all the facts and could come to an informed judgement it is likely that the vast majority would vote against, preferring to spend the money on health, education, the environment, houses and so forth. We need a debate - now - before Parliament votes this spring.