We know that GCSEs are not working. We know that our education system is working solely due to the immense and highly admirable efforts of those who work tirelessly to improve the chances and opportunities of young people. We have the opportunity, as a people, to radically evolve this system. For a summary of why this government's proposals are likely to cause immense damage, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/17/michael-gove-gcse-reforms?newsfeed=true. Some of the world's most foremost experts in education, who have all achieved spectacular results, have suggested a very different route. See for example http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html. Rather than ignoring them, the government could and should make use of their considerable expertise. By taking the small step of revising the proposals through a committee of learning experts, the government has the opportunity to make positive and informed reforms that will benefit each and every child in the UK for generations to come.

No need to use a sledgehammer to crack this very tiny nut of an issue. This small device will do it in one easy, democratic, stroke.

We all know to our cost that Competition between Energy suppliers is a myth When one increase its prices then the rest are quick to follow Ofgen gave up control as it naively thought that completion between the companies would do its work for them, but they forgot one important fact that all major companies naturally like to for cartels in order to ensure their continuing profits When one increase its prices then the rest are quick to follow as we know to our cost Politicians like to patronise the public & they think that we are stupid when they say shop around but we all are aware that this advice is fatuous

John Major and other senior party members pledged to return the donations if Nadir was found guilty of fraud - this was a Conservative party commitment which they should honour.

With record low turnout for elections, the democratic mandates of our governments and local councils are seriously undermined. It could be argued that the majority of the public is already voting for "None of the Above". The public is currently unable to exercise any choice over the individual candidates put up by each party, but permitting them to reject the listed candidates in an election would allow a new set to be put up.

This will show constituents who gets paid what from our council taxes. It will also show who in our communities make the decisions that affect us on a local level. It will show if a locality is held to ransom by a small band of councillors who control everything.

The law is a discriminatory one which relies on an individual police officer's judgement and, as such, is open to abuse. The police officer is open to criticism for misuse of the order and under 16 year old's are vulnerable to overzealous application and miss-accusations. The discriminatory nature of the order encourages the hatred and fear of young people and allows some to feel justified in discriminatory attitudes toward them. It encourages those who have suffered at the hands of badly behaved youths to believe that they are all like that and to become more afraid. It will only serve to alienate young people and make them feel that the police are there simply to control them but not to protect them. Already young people in Bangor are avoiding going out to the cinema and to after school clubs for fear of being caught in the curfew or of being beaten up by the marauding gangs that this order implies are on the loose in the city center. Bangor is a lovely historic place with much to offer young and old alike. It suffers from very little anti-social behavior apart from a very few people in limited areas and the usual after pub and club problems present in all cities. It is suffering in the downturn from an empty high street (the longest in the country) but there was no rioting in Bangor last year, the out of town JJB sports, PC World etc were not ransacked as was seen in other towns and cities across the UK, so why Bangor? There was no consultation with the public or even their elected representatives on the City Council. This is despite the ACPO guidance that there should be consultation with the effected community and a Rowntree report, which concludes that these laws have only been effective where consultation and involvement had taken place. This law is badly worded, heavy handed, discriminatory and draconian and it should be stopped now!

The Channel Island of Sark has just 600 inhabitants. They lead a peaceful and historic way of life that has remained largely unchanged for hundreds of years. The islanders get around on bikes or by horse and cart - there are no cars or tarmac roads on the island. It is a unique and beautiful place, a rare piece of tranquillity in a chaotic modern world. But now the billionaire owners of The Telegraph newspaper, the Barclay brothers, are threatening that way of life. Twenty years ago, they bought the tiny neighbouring island of Brecqhou and built a huge mock gothic castle that looms over Sark. Ever since, they have been buying up every hotel, small business and piece of land they can get their hands on. The islands status as a tax haven means the brothers have to pay no tax on their fortune back to the UK. The Sarkees have been doing everything they can to resist their power over the island. In 2008, the Barclays tried to flood the island's first democratically elected government with their allies. When the islanders emphatically rejected them in favour of their own representatives, the brothers retaliated by firing everyone who worked in any of the businesses they had bought out - that amounted to a sixth of Sark's population losing their jobs. It doesn't end there. Those who speak out against the brothers' stranglehold on the island are publicly dragged through the dirt in the Sark Newsletter - a weekly propaganda piece written by the Barclays' lieutenant, Kevin Delaney. The islanders recently told the Guardian and BBC that they live in fear in a "culture of bullying and intimidation." The Barclay brothers company Sark Estate Management (SEM) has turned much of their good quality agricultural land over to vineyards, land that was traditionally used by the islanders for centuries for growing crops and grazing livestock. In November 2012 a peaceful protest at the Sark Mill vineyards against the spread of vines resulted in 120 Sark residents signing a petition asking the Barclays to reconsider their vineyard project but this was ignored. SEM continue to spray the vineyards with chemicals and residents fear for the health of Sark's pristine ecosystem and their fresh water supplies which come from under the ground. Sark is a dependency of the Crown but, so far, our government has left the islanders to fend for themselves. The Department of Justice has admitted that it has an "ultimate responsibility to ensure good governance" of Sark. They are aware of what's going on - former Justice Minister Lord McNally has already been to visit the island. It's time Lord Faulks, the new Justice Minister and Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, lived up to that responsibility. You can find out more about the situation in Sark in this recent Panorama show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01px74c/Panorama_The_Tax_Haven_Twins/ Or this earlier Today programme piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709518.stm

The age of criminal responsibility in England is one the lowest in Europe, and the statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people. The age of criminal responsibility needs to be reviewed in light of the standards set by the UN Convention and these international comparisons. Young children are simply not capable of the sophisticated mental reasoning required to be held fully responsible for criminal actions, and we need to take a far more "welfare based" approach in dealing with young people who commit serious crimes. Furthermore, there is concern among neuroscientists in this field that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is unreasonably low given the emerging understanding of how slowly the brains of children mature, and the evidence of individual differences suggests that an arbitrary cut-off age may not be justifiable.

The introduction of photo ID in order to vote may be seen by some as a positive move to deter fraud and will not be seen as a problem to the more privileged and affluent members of our society who can afford to drive and go on foreign holidays. However, it may well be a problem for many of the more vulnerable members of society. The elderly, disabled, young people/students and financially disadvantaged members of society often do not have these forms of ID and cannot afford them/renew them. This would mean that a large percentage of our population would have their democratic right to vote taken away from them. Why should we have to pay the government for a document in order to vote? Is it a money making scheme, or maybe a way to ensure that only a certain demographic have the ability to vote? Please join me by signing this petition to make voting accessible for all.

Fire & Rehire is a tool to slash terms and conditions of contracted workers and has been used for decades. But there seems to be a growing trend and this is worrying. No company who have reaped misery and poverty on its employees are deserving of any remuneration from the public purse.

To stop Corruption in British politics.