Durham County Council have abandoned communities across the County and people have been left without representation. If we move to vote for a Mayor, a candidate WILL be standing who would return the County to District Councils, giving people a say in their Communities. Sign the petition and start the process to bring back democracy to the people of County Durham.

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

We feel the BBC News coverage of the Elections has, to date, been unfairly biased against the Beach Party. This bias is evident in the complete absence of coverage of the Beach Party yet they have been advertising UKIP for months and they have only just recently won their first parliamentary seat largly thanks to the main stream media propaganda. OCCUPY EVERYWHERE POWER TO THE PEOPLE NOT JUST THE 1% Sandy Andy is running for the 2015 General Election and the BBC are censoring this information: We Can Build a Better World! The Beach Party Politics are simple- Free Food Free Housing Free Health Care Free Higher Education Free Electricity, Heating, Water, Internet and Basic Utilities. The Beach Party manifesto is to provide these things to every citizen and will make politics more interesting. The BBC is evidently only working for the interests of big business and unethical industry profit which it has done for many years. Times are changing more rapidly then ever as we become more entangled with the interweb, but we hope for the sake of the world that this change goes in the right direction. Humanity could easily be obliterated by war, become slaves to Big Business Corporations or fade away amid the mounting effects of climate change so we hope to address these Bias Bloody Companies head on, with an online petition. If you think these ideas are important to stand up for, then please sign this and tell your friends. The Beach Party was founded on the simple aim of ”Being Nice” … pass it on! Anonymously we rise together – Andrew Robertson offers hope. It’s a pretense that we live in a DEMOCRACY in the UK, lets be honest, it’s a PLUTOCRACY which desperately needs re-shaping. Noam chomsky said a Princeton University paper by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page shows that our economic elite and organised groups representing Big Business Clients interests have substantial independent impact on governmental policy while average citizens and mass based interest groups have little or no impact. This behavior of Blatant Bias Corruption to benefit the few at the expense of license payers is frustrating for everyday people who fund these Big Bogus Companies. We can change things but we need to wake up to reality. The Beach Party is throwing its hat into the political ring with forward thinking ideas that aim to change life for the better, right now, for the majority of the population but the media should not be censoring this information. How do we pay for all these free things offered by the Beach Party? The UK currently spends more money on war then it would cost to feed and sanitize the whole world, so understanding this, it’s easy to see how we could feed everyone on our small islands. There are more empty homes in the UK then homeless people and profit from our utility companies is in the multiple billions. Profits at Britain’s ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers are five times higher than they were in 2009 yet average wages have barely increases. This doesn’t seem fair at all. The world produces enough food and has enough space to feed and house everyone alive but capitalism is used to ration goods and services to people with money. As a result many old people who have contributed to this country their entire life now cant afford to heat their house AND buy food. This system is designed to make the rich people richer and the poor people poorer. This country has never been collectively so rich but 1 in 3 now live below the poverty line. Somebody has to change this. http://www.dirtybeach.tv/politics-in-the-uk/

George Osborne has been criticised for sending millions of households annual tax statements that show the biggest chunk of their contribution going towards welfare, it has been described as “political propaganda masquerading as neutral information”.

For the truth to out and justice seen to be done, he has the legal mind to take the establishment to task and let justice seen to be done. Do not allow the establishment to select another so called expert.

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.

The neverendum is a destructive and divisive strategy that is a very corrosive influence on our society. We are a nation of only 5 million so the SNP should do the honourable thing and accept the result rather than continue to gripe and grouse about outside influences within our devolved parliament.

In this time of austerity and poverty we should be joining together to make sure that no one in our communities is going without food , a warm meal and something to drink .We should also be reaching out to those who cannot look after themselves

He is claiming that all benefit claimants can live off £7 a day. I think if he says it's possible why not do it himself. So like the rest of us we would get £7 to spend a day. All to go on nothing really as money would have to be saved up to spent on bills. With £7 a day means no gas, no electricity, no heating, no lights on a switch no hot food and just live in idleness, want, hunger, cold and squalor.

Without this clarity our rights to opinions and free speech will be at the behest of a regulator who may classify some as illegal financial promotions. Our regulator (the FCA) and their equivalent in the USA (the SEC) are currently the only regulators in the western world who are seeking to limit the free speech and flow of opinions of citizens on social media. So this matters to us all. Opinions & Free Speech Regulated = Censorship What it proposes is far from clear. The result of this lack of clarity is it places rights to monitor and regulate the expression of opinions and free speech, by both innovators and innocent members of the public, initially in this small but very significant area, into the hands of unelected and unaccountable regulators. Historical precedents are clear where this can, and usually does, lead. Clarity This unclarity is simply not necessary. One of the UK's leading legal minds, Chris Moss,of JMW solicitors, who continues to guide The Bank of Dave, has looked with us at the legislation, which was created before social media existed, and identified the small but crucial and uncontroversial changes needed to bring exactly this clarity. He has identified that these are changes that can be made by the Chancellor and his Treasury ministers. In under a week the UK's Financial Regulator close their consultation as they tighten their grip on Social Media and what messages from the trade and public will be outlawed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE ACT NOW Please sign the petition and also respond now to the FCA to ensure ordinary citizens are not placed in legal jeopardy for using social media to express an opinion, or talk about a crowdfund. This only need takes a few moments. The full details are at http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/guidance-consultations/gc14-06 and it closes 6th Nov 2014. If you care about free speech or the freedom of social media please read the summary and express your opinion, below. One way or another it's important you express your opinion about free speech. We need clarity and unless there's a change of direction that won't happen. PLEASE NOTE Sample/Template Text is provided below and you can skip to it below and send it if you're familiar with this issue and short of time. As requested by the FCA please email : [email protected] or use the response form at http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/guidance-consultations/gc14-06 ------ Sample Template Response (for you to adapt and send) ----- I/we do not believe that the FCA should have the right to monitor and classify ordinary citizens use of social media as illegal. Paid financial promotions (adverts) are different from citizens use of such media, and measures to ensure they are policed to be 'clear, fair and not misleading' must not remove the rights of citizens to free speech and free expression, or place citizens in jeopardy. This is paramount and we call on the FCA to ensure that this clear distinction is maintained in the handling of social media, and to make the necessary changes to these proposals to ensure that they are, and citizens and entrepreneurs use of social media for crowdfunding or other purposes is not restricted. To also, if necessary, directly raise these matters with government to ensure such clarity. We need clarity. Please play your part by taking just a few moments to respond to the FCAs consultation and express your opinion.