Because UK benefit claimants are simply not given enough money to survive, these are not hand-outs they are entitlements, every tax payer pays into the system, whether working or not, pensioner or youngster, it is time UK government stood up to the plate to comply with the EU Social Charter they have signed up to...........

This is important, because the false guarantee swayed members vote to support the Governments position. It is important to uphold the position that ministers that mislead the house should be sacked.

The Lee Valley receives money from every council tax-payer in London as well as the County Councils in Hertfordshire and Essex. By contrast our own Wandle Valley Regional Park in South West London leads a threadbare existence supported by the small allowances that our local boroughs can afford. When the current arrangements were made in 1966, there was a strong argument that the whole of London should help restore the Lee Valley, which was then a polluted ex-industrial wasteland in a poor area. Now after the Olympics and years of investment this is a beautiful park run by a well resourced Park Authority. Yet few visitors from South West London ever go there. The current Government and London Mayor have been asked to support legislation for change, but have failed to do so. Now in the run up to the national and London Mayoral elections we should demand that change. Let us repatriate our annual £1.6m payments and use the money to support a beautiful river park of our own instead.

We as a nation have been lied to, cheated and used by the Westminster system, we work hard, pay our way and politicians abuse our system.

Being an MP is a full time job. Members should not be distracted from their work on behalf of their consistuents and the nation by outside interests. The public can only have confidence in their elected representatives if they can be sure that those MPs do not have paid agendas from private companies or individuals foremost in their mind

Because the people of Thanet deserve to be served by councillors who aren't racist "Leadership - Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence."

In your own words, this £2,000 payment was to "suitably reward our staff for the transitions they have and continue to make". May we respectively remind you that we are also your staff and we equally contribute and adapt to change. Such a contemptuous approach only serves to undermine our contribution. This would be difficult to accept at any time but on the back of year on year pay cuts, additional unnecessary pension contributions and in the middle of our campaign for fair pay makes it even more disdainful. Non-Operational staff have equally shown continued commitment, flexibility, adaptability and drive over many many years but regardless will not receive this payment. Surely this cannot be right. The importance and value we place on teamwork within the Scottish Prison Service is steeped in history yet it would appear you are now prepared to cast this aside in favour of a divisive, fragmented and financially motivated approach. Inevitably this cannot be good for the long term future of the SPS. We cannot underestimate our strength of feeling and injustice. What we are asking for is simply Fair Pay for All;- Mr Mathieson, it is in your gift to make this happen, your recent actions have clearly shown that you are not constrained by Westminster. Mr McConnel, your early messages showed an acknowledgement of unity, togetherness, shared values and goals. Please don't lose sight of this now.

There are hundreds of acres of brownfield sites in the Stroud District which could be used to build the new housing required for the people of the Stroud District. However, developers don't want to build on these sites because it costs them more money than building on green fields.We should not allow the greed of developers to dictate local housing policy. If we still need more land for housing, once the brown field sites have been developed, we can then consider building on green field sites. The Government have said development should be on brownfield sites first so why aren't Stroud District council enforcing this policy? The Government have also said its a bottom up policy with local people deciding where houses should be built. This is our opportunity to tell Stroud District council.

I personally feel, rightly or wrongly, that if British Telecom were allowed to buy the 'Everything Everywhere' company, it would be like Tesco's buying Morrison's or Sky buying I.T.V. We need a competitive market place to create employment and drive consumers standards to higher grounds. The reaching long term implications of this potential sale, would have to result in job losses and if the public does not raise it's concerns about potential huge company sales such this and similar situations and attempts like it, we could be guilty of scratching our heads in 5 years time and asking ourselves "Where did all the work go?" In the last 3 years, I have found B.T. and E.E's customers standards to be poor and if they become no longer in direct competition with each other, how will their customer services ever improve? We are still recovering from a double-dip recession and the last thing the business market needs is an eventual streamlining of a big phone network. This must be stopped and it is in all of our interests to stop B.T. buying E.E. I have already contacted my M.P, Andrew Turner, about this matter and hope that others are able to find the time to contact their M.P. too.

The current campaign to get potential electors to ‘engage with’ politics fails to 'engage with' Russell Brand's insights (and with the frustration of those who care but feel impotent). The problem can be qualified very simply: 1. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not register is because they do not see the point in registering. 2. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not see the point in registering is because they do not see the point in voting. 3. The reason why non-voting potential electors do not see the point in voting is because: a. They cannot see any options which have a worthwhile chance of promoting their political preferences. b. There are never any ‘none of the above’ options. How could those who care but feel impotent express their despair, and their frustrated desire for a better process? c. Our lousy current voting processes would anyway ignore most of their votes. How could those who care but feel impotent make their votes count? Ideally, of course, all citizens in a liberal democracy would be able to express their political preferences through ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes. However, if the de-facto democratic processes are not ‘fit for purpose’, and those in power have a venal vested interest in maintaining the consequential democratic deficit, citizens have to seek first to change those ‘not fit for purpose’ democratic processes by whatever means (including high-profile ‘focussed outrage’). Where would South Africa be now if Nelson Mandela had played by the rules of apartheid? Where would India be now if Mahatma Ghandi had played by the rules of the British Empire? Where would women’s rights be now if the suffragettes had played by the rules of their menfolk? Where will the UK be in 50 years’ time if the constitutional reform movement urges us to play by the current not ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes? Those who care but feel impotent despair when they note that nine of the eleven members of the PCRC (Political & Constitutional Reform Committee of the Westminster Parliament) are members of the two dominant ‘covert coalition’ Parties; the very Parties which benefit from the current democratic deficit. They wonder ‘why would turkeys vote for Christmas?’. Unfortunately, the constitutional reform movement currently puts forward two conflicting messages to potential electors: 1. The constitutional reform movement (rightly) informs us that the vast majority of us will/would be wasting our time and dissipating our democratic energy by registering and voting (because the lousy current voting processes will ignore most of our votes). 2. The constitutional reform movement (wrongly) urges us to register and vote (thereby wasting our time, dissipating our democratic energy, and reinforcing the venal self-serving complacency of those who oppose constitutional reform). Citizens are not fools. They will not buy the above muddled pair of conflicting messages for long. Brand was/is right in his analysis and insights. However, he failed to provide a constructive alternative. Apathy is not a constructive alternative. Not-voting is not a constructive alternative. Taking over St Paul's cathedral is not a constructive alternative. Citizens need to see a positive and constructive campaign for constitutional reform. The purpose of this campaign is: 1. To act as a ‘call to arms’ and a ‘civil disobedience challenge’ for the 'focussed outrage' with which to confront those benefiting from the lousy current voting processes (i.e. the current Conservative and Labour Parties), who would otherwise of course simply wring their hands, obfuscate and drag their feet (as they always have done). 2. To convince those in power that resistance to constitutional reform is untenable, and that they had a venal vested interest in ‘embracing’ the campaign for constitutional reform (however reluctantly) before ‘events’ overtook them. Those who wish to explore the wider context for a campaign for constitutional reform in the UK can find more detail in two working papers: 1. The working paper 'A Campaign for Constitutional Reform in the UK' provides a blueprint for such a campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWMFNOV2tZeEwwTms/view?usp=sharing 2. The working paper 'Optimising Democratic Governance' provides an in-depth exposition of the principles underlying that campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWZTFLMmFMaUREUms/view?usp=sharing

The people most vulnerable people in society are being used for political gain. The measures being taken are punitive, uncaring and causing untold misery. People who are patently very ill are being told they are fit for work and are having all financial support removed. This has lead to suicides, hardship and suffering so great that even the United Nations are investigating human rights breaches by the UK Government. Living with a debilitating illness is hard enough without the fear of sanctions by an uncaring government churning your stomach every day of your existence. It causes mental anguish that is hard to explain to those who do not experience it and badly affects the general health of those in the firing line. The majority of claimants would give anything to be free of their illnesses and, unlike the portrayal by the minister that they are all freeloaders, have paid their NI contributions and are therefore entitled to the insurance they have paid for. There have been far too many mistakes made and far too many deaths associated with the war being waged on those in receipt of benefits.

The court can only order exemption, if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety; the court must now look at the temperament and past behaviour of the dog, whether the applicant is a ‘fit and proper’ person to be in charge of the dog and any other relevant circumstances. The changes will affect and be a death sentence to exempted dogs, much loved family members and companions - dogs which have already been found by a court of law, not to be a danger to public safety. The changes are draconian and do nothing to protect public safety. A family canine member may need to be appointed a new person to care for it, for a variety of reasons, including, housing issues, accident/injury, employment/work commitments, family commitments, divorce/separation. Due to the changes, someone can ONLY apply via a court application, which will be a complicated process for the average person to follow, to be the keeper if the previous person in charge of the dog is either dead or seriously ill. A non-legal person i.e. a rescue/animal welfare charity/company/local authority already registered or about to be registered as the owner on the exemption certificate should be able to re-home their exempted dog via a keepership change without restriction and appoint another registered keeper to the one appointed for any reason deemed necessary, thus saving the dog’s life. If the person to whom the exemption certificate has been issued is away and at a different address to their dog for more than 30 days over the course of a year, according to the new rules set out under SI 138, the dog must die; However, anyone for example who is regularly working away from home, visiting family, undergoing medical treatment/hospitalisation, travelling/working overseas, could be affected and their dog destroyed. This cannot be fair nor just, it is not necessary