He said in a meeting with regard to people living with disabilities "Are we still letting these mongols have sex with each other?" This remark comes from this man's MIND and someone who thinks that way should not be allowed to hold any public office. When I saw this on Facebook I was shocked to the core. I'm concerned about the people living with disabilities who this man is supposed to serve. How can he serve them as a Mayor or Councillor when he thinks like this, surely he'll put them right at the bottom of the pile. You can read more about the story here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/swindon-mayor-says-sorry-for-calling-disabled-people-mongols--but-charities-dismiss-forced-apology-9258603.html

Ms Hopkins' refreshing and blunt honesty about how the poor and disabled people of our great country is an eye opener, all she has done is speak the truth, and honesty is sorely lacking in the House of Commons. Labour needs people of this calibre who will fight tooth and nail for what they believe in, who hold issues passionately close to their heart and are not afraid to voice them as loudly as possible. We need more people like Deborah in Parliament, Representatives who place the needs and suffering of their constituents before personal ambition and greed. Backstory - http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Labour-axes-St-Austell-Newquay-MP-candidate/story-20953255-detail/story.html

Barbara Driver’s comments, which came during the meeting about plans to build 30,000 homes in Tewkesbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester, prompted outrage on Wednesday and were described as “repulsive” and “atrocious” by Cheltenham Borough Council Peter Jeffries. The Conservative councillor later apologised for the remark, which compared the "inevitability" of the building of new houses in the area with rape, “There is a saying and I am going to say it: When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it,” she told the meeting. In an open letter to Cheltenham Borough Council, addressed to the Mayor, Councillor Wendy Flynn, Ms Driver said she realised her remark was “completely inappropriate and thoughtless and should not have been said”.The letter read: “I am therefore writing an open letter to the council to offer my sincere apologies for the comment I made.“As an elected member of the council I believe that on this occasion I have fallen short of the high standards expected of a councillor and for that I am deeply sorry and I wish to place my apology on record through this letter.” Her remark was criticised by Karen Clarke, from the Gloucestershire Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (GRASAC), who described it as “quite shocking”."Rape has a devastating impact and there's no possibility that anyone could ever lie back and enjoy it,” she told the BBC."When people in positions of power make throw away and flippant comments like this it perpetuates the myths around rape."Someone in a position of authority should know better. Apologies are not enough."

If this boycott goes ahead, it will mean that many third year students will suffer delays to their graduations, as well the very real possibility that they could miss out on places in graduate schemes, Masters etc. Previous attempts at striking about pay have failed. They are willing to go without pay as they have done before in order to prove their seriousness. Our lecturers do not wish to hinder our advancements but it is something that they feel is necessary in order to achieve their goal of fair pay, and students support them in this. However it's the students that will suffer the most if this goes ahead. You and this University have the ability to end that suffering. Please try and negotiate. Thank You.

- To save the country money in these times of austerity. The accommodation will be less of a financial burden on taxpayers than accidentally claimed expenses for second homes. - MP's will be accommodated more in line with the level of accommodation that most of their constituents who they represent enjoy. - It will display a new level of transparency which the government desperately needs. - It will really show that MP's and the people they represent really are 'in it together'. - The housing should be within close proximity to the Houses of Commons to enable MP's to make best use of their valuable time.

If I had scammed £90,718 off the DWP, I would be in jail. Why is this not the case for Maria Miller who stole our taxes in yet another expenses scandal? Mr Cameron, the message you are putting out is 'one rule for one and a different rule for the other'. It's like you're telling your MP's 'it's okay as long as you don't get caught'. I thought no one was meant to be above the law? Also, she only has to pay £5000 back? We, the people, want justice.

This is a totally unnecessary decision and shows the Government does not value hard working nurses and health care support workers and are relying on their good nature and dedication to just accept it. A recent pay review body recommendation to increase MP’s salaries was accepted but then it was MP’s voting for their own pay increase! Please sign up to our petition so the Government knows how bitter a pill they are trying to make us swallow.

To simply say sorry is not good enough.

Since 2010, no major party has stood for election in the Buckingham constituency. Following an archaic, and blatantly anti-democratic convention, none of these parties stands against the Speaker. The electorate has therefore had the choice of voting for the Speaker, John Bercow – who is unable to vote in the House of Commons – but not for Conservative, Labour or Lib-Dem candidates. Mr Bercow has just announced that he will stand for election once again. Buckingham constituents thus face another five years of being unrepresented in Parliament. The Speaker is unable to vote on any motion in Parliament so his constituents are effectively disenfranchised. This issue is of national importance - we are being denied our democratic rights!

This petition is important for the simple reason that the Post Office is a vital part of the community in New Malden, and the only 'main' Post Office for a while around. Even a busy town like Kingston no longer has a main Post Office. The Post Office are trying to cut at least three, potentially four members of staff at the end of April, to be replaced by machines in Mid-May. The people of New Malden don't want machines to pay their bills - they prefer interacting with humans over the counter. DID YOU KNOW? Since 2012, if these plans are to go ahead, the Post Office will have lost 6 members of staff in 2 years - that's 50%! From 12 members of staff, to 6. Queues are already long enough now in New Malden Post Office, and it can't manage with 4 staff less. We need the Post Office to recruit new members of staff at New Malden Post Office to make up for this staff loss, and to, in effect, save New Malden Post Office. (See More at www.coombemonthly.co.uk)

1. South East is over crowded, expensive and takes up too much of the UKs resources. 2. If Parliament were not in the South East resources would be shared more equitably. 3. Manchester is the second largest city in England and could expand to balance the disparity between the South East and the North of England. 4.To work this has to be a permanent move, not a Parliament that sits sometimes in London and sometimes in Manchester. 5. Manchester is more accessible for regions such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. See:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/westminster-manchester-democracy-parliament

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.