The government commission on Digital Democracy is investigating "the opportunities digital technology can bring for parliamentary democracy in the UK" and will make recommendations in January 2015 (Google "Commission on Digital Democracy" - on their site you can see all the submissions so far to the commission). This submission proposes a form of e-consultations which provides an approach to e-democracy that is genuinely democratic, with people rather than politicians controlling the process. It also may help to get more young people involved in democracy and provide a means of youth constructively expressing its views and perceptions (which were certainly very relevant in the fable of The Emperor's New Clothes!) Whereas e-petitions, e.g. as organised by 38degrees, go a long way in e-democracy, they can be dismissed as un-representative of the population as a whole. An "official" e-consultation mechanism would be less dismissible - it becomes the MP's job to convince his constituents to support his "party line" on each issue raised by himself or by others. If there is a "Silent Majority" then the proposed e-Consultations would help them to be less silent. The "campaign website" (linked to above) contains a draft detailed presentation of the idea, based on the principles of "liquid democracy", for eventual submission to the commission - comments welcomed. An outline of the proposal is- • Govt. consultation websites on which anyone can include their issue, e.g. a petition on which citizens can vote. • Any activist group (from a local community assoc. to Greenpeace or a political party) can include their viewpoint on any issue, including links to supporting evidence. • There is a web page listing all the issues, each linking to: A page on which all the viewpoints on that issue are listed, each linking to: a page presenting that viewpoint. • Like Google search results – what matters is the order in which entries for issues and viewpoints are listed on these web pages - their relative position. • All citizens have equal “units of influence” which they have delegated to activist groups which they think should be listened to. At any time they can change how their influence is delegated. • An activist group applies the influence units delegated to it - to vote on the relative position of issues and of viewpoints on the web page listings. • Thus each citizen directly influences which issues and which viewpoints are most strongly presented to their fellow citizens.

The political climate is currently so bad traditional labour voters have been voting Ukip or EDL as a protest vote; racist, far right extremism as opposed to Ed Miliband. That's the sickening truth! People would rather UKIP were in charge than Labour. Why? Because Miliband has failed to inspire any faith or belief in the British public. But someone else on in the labour party has. And that person is Glenda Jackson. The people need somebody they can believe in, somebody they can trust, and that is what she has demonstrated herself to be. In her recent speech in the house of commons, she stood up for the welfare state, she stood for those who are suffering, and her stand has not gone unnoticed. The apathetic, disenfranchised but otherwise good people of this country stood up and took notice. They shared that video clip, indicating a glimmer of hope and inspiration to take an interest in politics. She was telling the truth, she was saying something I agree with. She was standing up for me and you. The only female Prime Minister we ever had in this country was a moral abomination. The current government are following in Thatchers ghastly footsteps, and if we keep following that path who knows what hell we'll end up in. Let's bring in another woman, a strong and intelligent woman who clearly cares about this country, who cares enough to stand in a room full of toffee nosed tories and tell them how it is. If Glenda Jackson were a labour candidate for Prime Minister, she would have my vote. Would she have yours? Sign this petition and lets show them how we feel about her, and about the future of the labour party being in the hands of somebody we believe in.

This is a public service, created by the hard working people of the UK in past generations, which has been sold off to make money for the government - but sold at a low price to ensure the certain people and agencies made money on the sale of the shares after going private. This is illegal, against the wish of the people, and a complete sham from a government who are supposed to represent and work for the will and welfare of the people. A full investigation should be held, and those who are found to have made money by insider knowledge held accountable.

More time is needed to ensure proper laws are discussed and agreed. We do not live in a policed state... Maybe there is law firm out there that would take on a mass case of legal challenges by the public to force telecoms companies to destroy the data now and thereby force the government into proper dialogue with people they are representing!

We are told that 'Smart' Meters will replace our existing water, gas and electricity metering systems and that the UK as a whole could benefit from saving up to 2% of our energy IF we change our behaviour. What are we NOT being told.. 1. There are major health concerns 'Smart' Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014) EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses. 2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy Germany has rejected 'Smart' Meters, citing a "lack of savings" for customers. In the UK, 'Smart' Meters are being publicised promoted as "putting consumers in control of energy". If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor - available for just £15 - to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, 'Smart' Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform "Active Demand Management" - where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public. 3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption Only consumers can save energy - when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total programme cost of £12bn - representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 - as energy companies looked to maximise profits. 4. Security vulnerabilities The proposed 'Smart' Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, "open to terrorist [cyber] attack". A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble - whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. 'Smart' Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012) 5. Privacy intrusions and profiling Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant's lives and behaviours at home - allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties - we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by 'Smart' Meters will follow. 6. They are a poor investment of OUR money Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher. 7. They are neither 'green' nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution - especially for children - due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless "Smart" Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted "out of date and obsolete" in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE's inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is "safe". Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent. 8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people's bills went UP after 'Smart; Meters had been installed - often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from 'Smart' Meters. Instead, Ofgem's recent 'Smartgrid Routemap' promotes the introduction of lucrative "Time of Use" tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times. Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings - ComEd's pilot in the US showing "zero statistical difference" in usage. Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public. We therefore want this £12bn programme STOPPED.

Andargachew Tsige is a campaigner for democracy in Ethiopia, he is an innocent man trying to bring change to his native country. He was sentenced to death in absentia for trumped up charges. Freedom of speech and dissent is a basic human right, which the Ethiopian government denies its people.

Children should be protected from everyone especially from those who believe they will never be caught or convicted.

This is important because the vast majority of people reading this petition will still be around in five years, and so this affects YOU. If we don't act now, then our safety and the safety of future generations will be in danger as our National Health Service slowly crumbles from a lack of funds.Furthermore, the population is ever increasing; as the ONS predicts, within 25 years the UK population will reach just over 73 million. This will put further strain on an already struggling institution. We need to say NO to spending £1.4 billion on redundancies, and YES to more spending on the NHS itself, its resources and its staff.

As UK and EU citizens, and human beings, we can not accept this. We call on David Cameron to immediately reverse the UK's stance. If we do not do this then how can the UK or the EU pretend to be democratic communities? If you are an EU citizen and you care about Human Rights, please sign this petition. Links: http://seedfreedom.in/un-to-outlaw-corporations-human-rights-abuses/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/eu-aims-to-scuttle-treaty-on-human-rights-abuses/

It is important because TTIP will rid us of some of our basic liberties and will oblige the UK Goverment to put businesses over people,stop the UK making laws that hinder companies profitability and will allow companies to bring in workers from any where in the world to save money on labour. TTIP should not,must not and will not make exploitation from corporations easier! With the help of you we can stop this! For more information on the issue search TAFTA,TTIP or go to the following link http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/inform/18078-what-is-ttip

If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate. This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government. This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion. There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!) No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions. It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.

Much of the violence in the middle-east is the result of western imperialism during and since the cold war. This conflict is no different. Military intervention will only make things worse. Those fleeing the conflict need our help. If we really care for the global community, we should do all we can for them.