The Banking Reform Bill re-treads the well-worn ground of ring-fencing banks’ risky investment operations from consumers’ money with Osborne threatening‘complete separation’ of banks’ different arms should they flout the new rules. He warned that there will be no more ‘too big to fail’ and that no government would ever again bail-out an entire bank. ‘When the RBS failed, my predecessor Alastair Darling felt he had no option but to bail the entire thing out. Not just RBS on the high street, but the trading positions in Asia, the mortgage books in sub-prime America, the property punts in Dubai,’ said Osborne. ‘I want to make sure that the next time a chancellor faces that decision they have a choice: to keep the bank branches going, the cash machines operating, while lettering the investment arm fail.’ LET USE KEEP OUR MONEY NOT THE RICH PEOPLE OUR COUNTRYS THEN MYBE WE CAN CUT TAX

Appealing the decision would waste still more taxpayer cash which should be spent on making the NHS better. It would cause continued damaging uncertainty and anxiety for NHS staff and local people. The decision to close vital Lewisham services was completely flawed and has now been found unlawful. The government has already spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a misguided attempt to close Lewisham hospital services. It should stop now, not throw good money after bad. If the High Court judgement were to be overturned, no hospital anywhere in the country would be safe from closure. See www.savelewishamhospital.com/ and www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs for more information.

As you may be aware, there are already numerous methods of blocking access to pornography where parents wish to do so. A block at the ISP level takes what is and is not blocked out of the control of parents, with potentially dangerous results. Video chat sites aimed at teenagers and certain social media sites are (as identified by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, CEOP) some of the places paedophiles go to prey on children, but as these are not 'adult' in nature they will most likely not come under the block. Parents being told their internet connection is being filtered for adult content to protect their children will therefore believe their children are 'safe' when they are in fact being left exposed to serious risks. The emphasis should be on educating parents about dangers like these, helping them to set up their own restrictions so their children are protected, and highlighting the fact that no blocking software or filters are a substitute for parental supervision. Restricting access to information based on blacklists and filtering at the ISP level represents a severe curtailment of civil liberties. Such practices are typically employed by governments wishing to restrict access to information and ideas they find threatening or undesirable (the aforementioned People's Republic of China being a good example). Prime Minister Cameron took the opportunity to also state that certain 'extreme' fantasy material (involving no illegal acts) would now be made illegal in all of the UK, signalling his intent to restrict access to material that is currently legal. Sure enough, one week later it was revealed that the ISP filtering may cover far more than just pornography; categories of materials that may be blocked include violent material, extremist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, and even web forums and so-called "esoteric material" (see http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall). I would urge you to carefully consider these points when and if these issues are debated in the house. The CEOP previously identified other priorities for protecting children from abuse such as finding ways to monitor hidden and encrypted networks, and greater inter-country law enforcement cooperation. I believe these approaches should be selected in preference to the measures mentioned by the Prime Minister, measures that will ultimately fail to catch the most serious perpetrators and are themselves open to serious abuse.

Given the recent revelations about GCHQ's 'Tempora' programme UK citizens are facing the greatest threat to their civil liberties in this country's history. Indiscriminate surveillance is being collected on the populace on a massive scale with no public mandate or accountabilty. This is being allowed through a legal loophole which would have been legitimised with the Snooper's Charter. If this kind of system is allowed to exist at all at the very least it should have a mandate from both the public and parliament - with external accountability and auditing. No publicly accountable body currently exists to audit this programme.

To stop marginalising healthcares future workforce, to stop 'blaming' groups of hard workers in the NHS for government cut backs - you cut staff = decressed level of care. It's that simple Mr Cameron, the smaller work force work harder, for less pay (you capped that) and you still insist on blame and interfering with our training - how are you qualified to make such statement and change to a profession that will far out live that of your own [fact]. In response to your snide, unfounded & what I'm pretty sure is borderline liable little comment - the least you can offer is one 12.5 hour shit in a NHS hospital, I'll even boil my uniform for you.

We believe that arming the rebels will not end the conflict in Syria or contribute to that end. Further we believe that sending weapons to the rebels could lead to the escalation of the violence in Syria and the wider Middle East region.

In 1913 Emily Davison ran in front of the King's horse and was killed, in what was probably the most historically memorable event of the movement for Women's Suffrage. Emily Davison should be remembered, as should all women who campaigned for women's suffrage in the early 20th Century. The place where she made her stand should carry her name so that her sacrifice will always be remembered

Our MP's should lead by example. If I was caught doing a dishonest, or criminal act I would be expected to resign my position. His constituency voters should have the final say on whether he remains an MP.

UK coroner Sir Robert Owen, under pressure from Foreign Secretary William Hague, has said a legal inquest will exclude material implicating either Russia's state agencies or the UK security services. Seven years after the death of her husband, Marina Litvinenko is no closer to knowing the truth about his death. This is a travesty of justice at the heart of Westminster and a disgrace to the people of Britain. Many other lives were also put at risk - in London, Moscow and Hamburg and on planes and vehicles in which the Polonium was transported. The public deserves an answer too. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22579463 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague?INTCMP=SRCH

In the light of the current legislation which aims to claw money back from social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit if their accommodation has 'too many' bedrooms - it might be interesting to discover how many MPs have claimed for housing that they 'under-occupy', and which of these MPs are in favour of the bedroom tax.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

Last year, student Cait Reilly and unemployed driver Jamieson Wilson, took the Tory led coalition to task over their controversial Workfare programme arguing that it was unlawful. Three Judges found that regulations under which most of the Tory led coalition back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful. The main issue is that the Tory led coalition lost this case and they lost because they failed to provide sufficient and legal information about Workfare to job-seekers. It is estimated that 231,000 people were originally affected by their decision and had their benefits sanctioned (ie stopped). The morality of the Workfare system is not being debated here (although flaws of the system are outlined below). This petition is about the abhorrent behaviour of the Tory led coalition that followed this decision and their decision to retroactively change the law. On 19 March 2013, a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons which will change the law (that they broke) retroactively thus enabling the Tory led coalition to avoid having to repay the money that they illegally took from job-seekers - an average of £550 per person. The issue here is threefold: Firstly, the Tory led coalition (assisted by Labour and Lib Dems) are trying to retrospectively change the law to protect themselves from their own flawed policies. By retrospectively changing the law they can ensure that no law has now been broken and thereby avoid having to repay those who they illegally sanctioned. This behaviour is morally repugnant and vile and cannot be allowed to happen. Secondly, there seems to be a complete media blackout on the story and the Bill was rushed through, the day before the Budget - one may argue in an attempt to bury it? Thirdly, the Workfare scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been shown not to be an effective tool to get unemployed back in to work. The problem is there are no jobs for people and the Tory led coalition is deflecting this fact away by demonising those looking for work such as Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson. There is plenty of evidence to show that workfare claimants are replacing real jobs. Since this WP came in, many retail giants and the Royal Mail have used workfare so they don't have to offer overtime to their existing workers. Asda recently put all their part-time staff on contracts which guarantee just 4 hours work a week. Many shops are run by workfare. This whole scheme is about exploiting labour - the workfare claimants are being exploited for free labour; the existing workers are being exploited by losing hours and pay; and we are all being exploited when what we buy is making profits for corporations which are using what is effectively indentured labour. People who are fortunate enough to be paid for their work are afraid of rocking the boat lest they be replaced. These schemes guarantee a cowed and compliant workforce, paid or not, who will be reluctant to unionise and unwilling to protest in case they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, taxpayers' money is being poured by the billion into the coffers of welfare-to-work companies and corporate profiteers, and Labour seem to be OK with this in principle. These are extremely important issues and cannot be ignored.