The UK public purse loses tax that can be used to fund much needed public services 25% is too low for the new tax rules. Organisations that have little or no investment in the UK and earn large sums for example: Google made £3.3 billion they paid tax of £20.4 million small compared to if they were taxed 50 % through the new scheme: The public purse would have gained £1.65 billion that could have went to the NHS, Schools, Fire Services, Legal Aid. The consultation closes on the 4th February 2015. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5FZU64Bnw&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636

- The Scottish Government has joined in the world-wide condemnation of the “deep inhumanity” of the Israeli massacres and is calling for a ban on arms sales to Israel. - It’s a scandal that St Enoch Centre is hosting Israeli Dead Sea cosmetics outfit Obey Your Body to sell their goods, the proceeds of war crimes and the dispossession of Palestinians from their lands for exclusively Jewish settlement. - These goods are made from materials taken illegally from the occupied Palestinian Dead Sea area, a crime under international law. - Help us to stop these crimes. Let the Israeli stall people know that you oppose their activities and want them removed from Glasgow City Centre as they have been removed from Braehead and Silverburn centres and Ocean Terminal in Edinburgh

The Government Penalty Notices Regulations 2013 requires schools to keep a register of young people attending school and where unauthorised absences result in a pupil’s attendance falling below 90%, then Penalty Notices may (in all but exceptional circumstances) be issued requiring parents to pay £60 within 21 days rising to £120 within 22-28 days of the notice. The justification for the Penalty Notices Legislation is for pupils to benefit from education and achieve their full potential through regular attendance. We believe that the issue of regular attendance is not restricted purely to children who we believe can only genuinely learn the value of attendance if those requiring improvements in absenteeism also adhere to the same standards in their own attendance. This petition calls upon the politicians and elected officials in central, devolved and local government to demonstrate an equal commitment and achievement of at least 90% attendance throughout the year for all meetings, committees, sub-committees and other duties required of them in their public role. The purpose of this is to help politicians achieve their full potential within their role as required of them by the British public and demonstrate meaningful commitment to the seven principles of public life - in particular to Integrity, Accountability and Leadership. Data on politicians’ attendance at committees and official duties is already collected and reported at all levels. Penalty Notices should be levied at the same rates and timescales as those issued to parents whose children fail to meet attendance requirements. This demonstrates equity and integrity.

In 1978 I like millions of others were told we would retire at 65 if we signed up to the 1978 Pensions Reform Act. Indeed the UK Government forced every Company offering pensions to prove their scheme was equal to, or exceeded the Pension offered by the State. I like millions of others were told we would retire at 65 now the UK Government has arbitrarily renaged on that undertaking and is making people born after 1955 retire later and later, despite giving an undertaking in 1978 that we would retire when we reached 65

Because you can't allow 90,000 children to be homeless in one of the richest countries in the world. It's disgraceful.

This proposal has been leaked by the Guardian in its article ‘EU plans to scrap laws on clean air and waste recycling’ (Guardian, 11/12/14) @ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/11/eu-plans-to-scrap-clean-air-and-waste-recycling-laws These are quotes from the article: "...Another victim of the legislative cull is a flagship clean air directive intended to prevent 58,000 premature deaths – and many more respiratory illnesses – as well as saving hundreds of thousands of kilometres of forests, wildlife reserves and ecosystems from nitrogen pollution and acidification. “The EU should be cutting red tape, not cutting life expectancy,” said the Liberal Democrat MEP Catherine Bearder. “Thousands of people in die prematurely each year from diseases caused by air pollution. To withdraw this proposal would send a message that the new commission puts the interests of big business ahead of the health of European citizens....”

Elections and Referendums should be held in a way that leaves the public with 100% confidence in the outcome. At the moment the system leaves worrying areas of uncertainty, areas in which Electoral fraud may be possible. Under the current system, once votes are made, ballot boxes are commonly transported at the "Discretion of the counting officer" they are often then unsupervised and/or by un-vetted transporters. They are often transported in ballot boxes that have not been fully sealed in a 100% fraud proof way. Often these boxes will be transported with only one single identifiable tag on that unfortunately does not stop the ballot box from being opened and closed. We advise transportation of ballot boxes should no longer take place. To remedy this situation we are now petitioning you to change the way in which the ballots are held which removes any requirement for ballot boxes to be transported. All Votes should be placed and counted in the same hall. The ballot boxes should be supervised 100% of the time and they should be sealed and closed in a way that they can not be opened in anyway whatsoever. The votes should then be counted in the same hall under constant supervision. Thus removing any chance of transportation fraud. The other key area that is open to Fraud is that every ballot paper should be numbered or marked in a unique way so that they are identified as genuine ballot papers. Currently this is only a guideline and not Law. It was reported during the Scottish referendum blank ballot papers were issued and accepted by the counting officers. When the Electoral commission was contacted about this they advised that the votes will have been accepted. Use of unique identification numbers or water marks on ballot papers should be backed up by law. No ballot paper whatsoever should be accepted if it does not have the UIN or watermark. This cannot be left to the discretion of the counting officer. This should be put in place as if there was ever a case of fraud or an accident involving ballot boxes there is currently no way of identifying ballot papers as being genuine or not. We hope that you will look into this as it is a matter of upmost importance. It is very important that the UK can have as transparent and fair and democratic voting system as possible that can ensure the outcome of future ballots can be trusted to be reliable and 100% fraud free. The public should not be in ANY doubt about the reliability of Elections or Referendums.

Austerity what Austerity? £265.000 on Champers for the Lords! Disgusting, we're paying through our noses for utilities,Petrol,Food and the Commons and Lords are on a Subsidised Jolly.

Councillor Willie Young has now used twitter twice to send hateful twitters to people, both of which have used the theme of disabilities against the individual. The use of using these actions goes against the disabilities act as it falls as harassment and makes derogatory remarks of a disabled nature.

In the UK a party can make pledges before an election and immediately do the opposite after taking office and the electorate can do nothing about it for 5 years despite the fact the party got elected based on the original pledges. Examples from the 2010 UK election include the Tories announcing they had no plans to put up VAT and then announcing an increase to 20% 1.5 months after it, pledging no top down reorganisation of the NHS and then publishing a White paper 2 months after the election doing exactly that. Personally I would consider getting votes on the basis of pledges that you have no intention of keeping as fraud, given how quickly the 2 examples above came after the election it seems unlikely that there was a unexpected change of circumstances to account for the change. Since we can't deselect MPs that break pledges they made to get elected, any pledges made in the manifesto should be legally binding since it is those pledges that got them elected, it is possible that a change of circumstances may occur which make carrying out a pledge they made less viable, a process should be put in place to give the government an option to revisit the electorate to get authorisation to break the pledge rather than the current carte blanche to ignore the pledges they gave to get elected. A computerised system could be put in place to allow for referendums to do this to be carried out cheaply, this could be via the internet or via public terminals in council buildings for example. The system could also be used by the electorate to block legislation they didn't agree with subject to a minimum percentage of voters taking part. The current situation encourages parties to make pledges before an election that they know they have no intention of keeping, a change in the law to make them legally enforceable unless they revisit the electorate would force them to be kept whilst still allowing for the pledges to be amended if circumstances should change.

Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible. This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction. A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster". The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now. One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar. There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties. There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel. I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.

Penny Mordaunt MP made a speech riddled with innuendo in the House of Commons following a dare from friends in the Royal Navy. She said ‘c**k’ six times and ‘lay’ or ‘laid’ five times in a debate about the welfare of poultry. She is responsible for the Fire Services of England and is part of the Pension reform that is being pushed through Parliament. How can she be taken seriously when she uses valuable time to debate trivial subjects and say certain words as part of a bet. As as retired fire fighter I find this outrageous. To watch the video click below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc For background on the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855316/Did-really-far-risque-speech-MPs-Penny-Critics-accuse-Tory-trvialising-Parliament-innuendo-laden-address.html