This £93 million has to be found from other tax sources and where by robbing Peter to pay Paul, the government will make cuts elsewhere. That might be funding taken from the NHS or reduced social payments that affects everybody and the poor respectfully.

a) EXTEND CLAUSE 12 TO COVER GROUPS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS When Sun columnist Katie Hopkins referred to asylum seekers and migrants as ‘cockroaches’, ‘a swarm’, ‘a plague’ a ‘virus’ ; ‘vagrants’ ‘feral humans’ - who if they did reach our shores turned our towns into ‘festering sores’”, she did not in any way breach Press Organisation standards, according to the IPSO ruling, which was again defended by its chief executive Matt Tee a few days ago. “In terms of the Editors’ Code, there wasn’t anything that could lead to a successful complaint against that column.” he said in his statement. And that’s because the Code is inadequate. In its ruling, this Press self-regulatory body said it could not even CONSIDER the complaints under the element of its Editors' Code of Practice dealing with discrimination, (Clause 12) as, although this “specifically prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals” its terms “do not restrict publications’ commentary on GROUPS OR CATEGORIES OF people”. (Emphasis mine) But on those terms therefore, the IPSO Code of Practice would allow publications to use similarly vile language, about the disabled, about any racial or religious group, about people of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, just so long as the comment referred to the group as a whole, and not to any specific individual. At present, under the section headed Discrimination, the IPSO Code states : i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. We suggest that the words “or group’s” simply be added, between the words “individual’s” and “race” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following publication of Hopkins' column, other newspaper columnists expressed their horror at her remarks, more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for her to be fired, and the High Commissioner of the United Nations expressed his deep concern. GENEVA “. . . in the wake of a recent article in the Sun newspaper calling migrants “cockroaches,” the UN Human Rights Chief . . urged the U.K. authorities, media and regulatory bodies to take steps to curb incitement to hatred by British tabloid newspapers” UK LAWS dealing with hate crimes and hate speech, DO outlaw expressions of hatred against ‘groups’ of people (see below). And they state that a person is guilty of an offence if by his/her actions “(s)he intends to stir up . . . hatred, or . . hatred is likely to be stirred up. “ The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all say “ . . hatred means hatred against a group of persons . . . (defined by reference to race, religion, or sexual orientation.) Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a crime is considered to be ‘aggravated’ if the offence is motivated by [general] “hostility towards persons . . “ (plural) - who have a disability. Surely the wording of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, with reference to discrimination, should at the very least then, reflect the current standard of UK law. _______________________________________________________ Concern about free speech Of course there could be and should be concern, and continuous debate, about free speech, but the Code already insists that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to “infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevent publications in the public interest. “ Nevertheless, it also says that this should be balanced with respect for the rights of the individual. ______________________________________________________________________ b) Urging IPSO to better ENFORCE its “Editors’ Code of Practise” Even as it stands, in HAVING a clause about discrimination, IPSO presumably intends to promote an atmosphere of treating with respect and dignity, (even if not making them immune to criticism), individuals belonging to those groups which the law deems to be in need of particular protection in this area. And its Code of Practice states “it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit “ Even if migrants and asylum seekers do not constitute an identifiable racial or religious group, (part of Matt Tee’s defence about IPSO’s ruling ) it is difficult to see how they would not be included within the SPIRIT OF a Code which says “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion . . “ , within the spirit of a Code which seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, and which affords particular consideration for those experiencing personal grief or shock. It may be too late to get a better ruling on The Sun/Katie Hopkins case, but the Press must regulate itself against allowing a proliferation of such hateful language about human beings in its publications, by extending its Editors’ Code of Practice in the way suggested, and by better enforcing the Code. That is, if its claim that it “sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press . . .have undertaken to maintain” – is to mean anything at all.

Imagine the nuclear bombs in our country went off, leaving our nation a wasteland and we had to flee to mainland Europe or Africa, should they turn us away because we're refugees? Because we're of another faith or skin colour? Would other nations letting us die be okay? Chances are you said, no, so how is it okay for us to let thousands of people die every day trying to escape war. War that we created. They're trying to escape the IS, they're trying to escape the bombs that France, America and We drop on them. We need to do more. These are human beings and we are letting them die.

The public have the right to know whether Margaret Thatcher used her influence to secure a construction contract for her son. Clive Whitmore, Mrs Thatcher’s principal private secretary from 1979 to 1982, is quoted as saying in his book: “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity.” The i Newspaper recently reported - Mark's files 'to stay secret until 2053' Downing Street files relating to the controversial business dealings of Sir Mark Thatcher in 1984 have not been released under official 20-year rules. Why, what is there to hide? It's not as if national security is threatened.

His final and lasting recommendations (including an award for his wife's stylist!) reek of croneyism and will only serve to diminish any reverence for, or belief in, the Honours System. It is time for a thorough review of the rules and practices governing these matters.

George Osborne developed and implemented one of the most devastating economic policies in modern history. Not only was the programme a disaster for the poorest Britons, his "austerity" economic policy was based on a lie. The policies he developed could not be supported by any sound economic theories and time and time again these policies were proven to be a disaster for the poorest people in the UK. The economic research used to push forward his programme was proven to be false as early as 2010. As a direct result millions of people in the UK were forced into a volunteer work scheme where they were forced to work up to 30 hours a week for free. This allowed large companies to benefit from free labour and increase their profits. The scheme collapsed after six months due to the public outcry. When Osborne became chancellor of the exchequer there were just over 61,000 people in the UK using food banks. After 6 years of his disastrous austerity programme there are now over a million Britons who rely on food banks to survive. The "bedroom tax" and other cuts to benefits lead to an increase in poverty amongst disabled people and the austerity measures undoubtedly had a bigger impact on women and the poorest of households. The austerity programme was hastily abandoned by Theresa May's government but the disastrous impacts will be seen for decades to come. The austerity programme implemented by Osborne pushed more Britons into poverty. Osborne should not receive any awards for making millions of people worse off.

This will provide the democratic legitimacy for firm political leadership and direction in order to turn round a failing economic system (see chart) in the Eurozone. With the UK no longer in a position to stop 'ever closer union' but (together with other non-Eurozone countries) wishing to see a strong and stable Eurozone, now is the time to take this initiative before other separatist movements can cause EU disintegration.

Philip Green's behaviour in relation to BHS has yet again highlighted the loopholes and weaknesses in UK law governing the handling of money and finance. Green's behaviour is not untypical and it is clear that there are people who will always seize opportunities to make themselves wealthy with no heed for the consequences to other people and to society at large. The law needs to be changed to take account of this inevitable human behaviour so as to prevent the damage that arises from it. Removing Green's knighthood may satisfy a need for revenge but it does not even approach solving the problem.

This matters to the people you have impoverished. It matters to the whole of the business community that you have disgraced. It matters to the nation which cares for its reputation as a global leader in corporate governance. It ought to matter to you that your name is vilified and is become a byword for amoral greed. It matters to me because it matters.

There is some concern that Facebook and Twitter are being manipulated in order to undermine political debate in the UK. Many people who suggest this are accused of being paranoid or conspiracy theorists. Facebook and Twitter have the resources and data to confirm whether or not this is true, and if it is true to confirm whether or not it is a technical breach of their Terms and Conditions. It is also within their power to indicate the likely source of such a campaign. By conducting such an investigation and publishing the results, 2 of the largest media organisation in the world have a powerful opportunity to send a message about what is acceptable behaviour in political discourse on social media, and more broadly to make a strong statement about the value of fairness and honesty in democratic society.

The Chelsea Farmers Market is one of the few remaining outdoor independent trading locations in the heart of Chelsea reflecting the great history that made the Kings Road and surrounding areas a place individual to the rest of London, a thriving village. Any plan to demolish this would remove a heart of the community that is different from any where else in Chelsea. Only this site offers a unique outdoor experience to diners and shoppers. The Kings Road has increasingly become like any other High Street in England, however The Chelsea Farmers Market offers an escape from this by providing relaxed outdoor experience all year round to the residents and visitors of Chelsea. It's a unique destination enjoyed by all walks of life. The loss of The Chelsea Farmers Market would be another nail in the coffin for independent traders and individual community space for the sake of the commercial and financial gain of the minority. We need the power of the local residents, visitors and Londoners to help prevent this change to an area that will be demolished and never be re-created. Your signature can help preserve one of the few existing open air trading spaces, save jobs and prevent another concrete jungle from being developed.

Many MPs have secondary interests such as investments, businesses they own or hold a stake in, or guaranteed jobs that they may return to once they retire from parliament. These and other conflicts of interest should not be permitted to affect the outcome of a vote. Currently MPs are required to declare such conflicts of interest, so that any bias of theirs is known prior to a debate, however there is currently no restriction on their ability to act upon such a conflict, rather than in the best interests of their constituents. For example, during the vote upon bombing in Syria and renewal of Trident, many MPs voting in favour of these have investment or involvement in arms manufacturing, presenting a clear bias towards anything that increases military spending. While these MPs should remain free to present their case, it seems only appropriate that they should be made to abstain, or to somehow prove that their intended choice represents the will of their constituents and not their own self-interest.