Latest Update: The first specification outlines have been released and it is still 70% theory! Now it is 60% Exam 10% written coursework and still only 30% Practical! Following the consultation regarding changes to GCSE PE (in which the opinions of PE teachers seem to have been completely ignored) the government are forcing incredibly damaging changes to GCSE PE which will have far reaching impacts right down to year 7 PE lessons. They have decided that the course will change from the current 60% practical 40% theory to 30% practical and 70% theory! This change will almost completely take the physical/practical aspect out of Physical Education. They are also proposing to massively narrow the activities that students can use as the practical element (moving to a much more traditional / Public school offering of activities). The impact of this will mean a narrowing of the activities offered by secondary schools which will feed down through the year groups. The move to an almost solely theoretical course will also have an impact on the activity level of students in PE lessons, due to schools trying to maximise the performance of students by focussing much more on theory lessons rather than actually being physically active and taking part in sport. This will have long lasting and damaging effects on the health and fitness of future generations. The changes will also take away another avenue for students who are less academic to be successful and get a qualification in an area that they may wish to follow as a career. If these changes go through then many schools may choose to no longer offer Physical Education as a GCSE and the change to the GCSE PE course may well be the final nail in the coffin for physical education in secondary schools, if people do not force a change of direction.

Labour has said it will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a second, elected house. This will not add anything to parliament, it will just add another layer of establishment figures that passed through private schools, did PPE at Oxbridge and will move into directorships when finished. The selection could be one member per constituency or several per county or some other geographical boundary. We need a second house populated by people that didn't get into power by knowing someone important or buying their way in. The MPs/PM must have no possibility of influencing the make-up of the new house. There must be no incentive for new members to use their time to attach themselves to the establishment. This will most likely lead to women, ethnic minorities, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, those that didn't go to public school, etc being proportionately represented. If they need advice on points of law they can use the same methods the MPs use (civil service, advisors, etc). The second house should be able to send ill thought out legislation back to the MPs for revision. In addition it should be able to propose legislation for MPs to debate. We currently have nobody in either house that knows what it's like to live in poverty and have no network of rich friends to fall back on. This should redress the balance. It will prevent the new house being populated by those who want power (and therefore become corrupted by it) If anyone selected doesn't want to stand (or has to leave) they can be replaced by a further random selection. Selection would be very cheap - eg picking a random national insurance number. No-one can be a member of the new house for more than one session. The session should last the same amount of time as the MPs session (5 years) but could possibly be offset by two and a half years to prevent MPs from 'buying off' the members in any way for a parliamentary session. The new house would be located outside of London if a physical location is necessary and would allow for remote meeting (eg telecommuting) for as much time as the new house deems necessary.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.

There are numerous reports and accounts of our claim including the findings of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts committee - (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/394/39404.htm). Further 105,344 people agreed with Debbie Sayers and myself when we called for Hold Iain Duncan Smith to be held to account for misusing statistics http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-must-face-2912624, to no avail, this is despite the Government agreeing that "statistics should be presented in a way that is fair, accurate and 'unspun' ". These distorted 'facts' are used to further deprive disabled people of the essential benefits needed to manage their conditions; so far the 'Cuts' have resulted in disabled people losing an average of £4,410 per person - 9 times more than the burden placed on most other citizens http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/uploads/attachment/354/a-fair-society.pdf. These mis-truths are also responsible for justifying the latest proposals, irrelevant of the Evidence http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/disabled-people-threatened-another-cut-4534714 Iain Duncan Smith continues to ignore his Government and persists in misusing statistics, and it is for these reasons we believe it is time for the Powers of the Commissioner for standards to be exercised, and for Iain Duncan Smith to be independently and openly investigated for breach of Conduct Jayne Linney & Debbie Sayers

Britain first are a far right hate group that promotes racial and religious hatred via their website and Facebook page. The number of their likes, even though fake, gives them a veneer of respectability and increases their global reach. The comments on their posts are of the vilest hate speech imaginable. Facebook needs to investigate Britain Firsts page and remove their fake likes.

Voters are apathetic, as they perceive the establishment parties as not giving them enough choice. We need plurality in politics, not just the Establishment parties plus UKIP.

Last year, the UK government said it was no longer willing to support rescue missions in the Mediterranean designed to come to the help of migrants who find themselves in distress at sea. This is in violation of internationally recognized minimum humanitarian standards. More than 20,000 men, women, and children are estimated to have lost their lives in the past two decades, while trying to cross the Mediterranean in search of a safe place to live. The majority of these people are refugees escaping violence, persecution, and hardship from countries like Libya and Syria. It is the duty of the international community and in particular the EU to minimize loss of life and do as much as possible to rescue as many people as possible.

In June this year I visited the Lebanon. Whilst there I saw destitute refugee women and children begging on the streets, and I met young Syrians fleeing from their country. When I asked a teenager whose leg was bandaged whether he was studying, he shook his head. By way of explanation he told me he was from Syria. He raised his hands to his chest and gestured a broken heart as he said this. The UNHCR has confirmed that there are now over 3.2 million refugees from Syria. Over half are children. Most are in situations that are not sustainable in the long term. 80,000 refugees alone live in Zaatari, one of the world's largest refugee camps in the desert of Jordan. These are people who have lost loved ones, experienced violence and are unable to return to the places where they grew up and the lives that they had before. They are seeking safety. In her recent TED talk, the UNHCR's Melissa Fleming said that the average time a refugee spends in exile is 17 years. When we could be offering some thousands the chance of safety and education and a future in the UK, 'to thrive not just survive' as Melissa Fleming puts it, we are choosing not to do so. In January this year, the UK announced a commitment to resettling the most vulnerable Syrian refugees but since then we have resettled just 50. (4000 Syrians in total since the war began according to Home Office figures). By contrast Germany and Sweden sheltered 42,000 refugees last year. The UK's commitment to resettlement is not enough if we are not prepared to help people get here. I am calling on the leaders of the main political parties to show compassion and commit the UK government to giving resources to transport Syrian refugees here and fund their resettlement in the UK. Each person sheltered can be a life changed for the better. Let us lead the way and work with European countries to care for some of the victims of this devastating conflict. (Picture is of 3 year old Aisha Nour from Azaz, Syria, outside the container in which she and her family live at the 'Container City' refugee camp in Oncupinar, Turkey. Photograph by Sam Tarling.) More information: Refugee Council news 'UK resettles just 50 refugees from Syria' http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/4144_uk_resettles_just_50_refugees_from_syria You can see UNHCR's Melissa Fleming's TED talk here http://www.ted.com/talks/melissa_fleming_let_s_help_refugees_thrive_not_just_survive?language=en

-The steps are an iconic place. They have been used extensively by demonstrators. For instance, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, the steps were widely used by both "Yes" and "No thanks" campaigners. -The steps are popular. Many people use them as a place to sit, eat their lunch, socialise and listen to buskers. -There aren't many places in Glasgow City Centre to sit. Apart from George Square, there really isn't anywhere you can sit. -The steps provide excellent views over Buchanan Street and beyond. These views are captured by local photographers and artists.

Because this is an experiment and there is no proof that it is working in the very limited way it is being operated in pilot areas at present. The IT systems on which it relies are not ready or fit for purpose. Yet it is to be extended nationally next year. DWP staff, poorly trained, are already stretched beyond the point where they can deliver an efficient and humane service. And it is about the finances of the poorest, most vulnerable and least resilient people in our society.

People with disabilities are being denied grants enabling them to obtain adapted vehicles yet the company is rich. Are the disabled being ripped off with the price they pay to Motability and are they not receiving a fair discount that Motability receive from manufactures. Read more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789975/motability-boss-paid-1million-bonuses-sparking-calls-parliament-investigate.html

It is important that everyone in the country feels they have an equal stake in society based on merit, rather than the current system of hereditary rule, where the highest political office that one could aspire to as head of state, is based purely on being born into the house of Windsor, therefore negating meritocracy and democracy as irrelevant.