Many people over 65 are members of the 'baby boomer' generation retired with good occupational pensions as well as the state pension, often living in warm comfortable houses which they bought on mortgages much cheaper than they are now. They don't need the £100 to keep warm but there are others less fortunate and often much younger who can't even afford to rent a property never mind own one and some of them are sleeping on the streets in the winter cold. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/one-in-six-pensioners-is-a-millionaire-official-figures-show/ Many retired people, like me, send the money to charity but others never get round to doing it. Many others will just feed it into their frivolous lifestyle without a thought about how it could do more good elsewhere. Perhaps if they were given the option by the DWP to send it to a good cause instead much more of this money could be sent where it could really make a difference. Nudge Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory) now being used by various government departments could possibly feed millions in this direction. Even better, since if you give to charity yourself with Gift Aid the government adds another 20%, perhaps they should send £120 for each person who selects the option. Obviously it will take some time for the government to set this up if we do persuade them; certainly not before the middle of next year. So if you are reading this and you are a pensioner like me who can easily do without the payment, and you haven't already sent it to a good cause, maybe you could send it to a deserving charity too?

Put frankly, finances in our West Sussex Schools are at breaking point. If nothing is done there will be severe consequences for our children. Currently headmasters across our county are having to consider and actively plan to take any of the following measures to make ends meet: • Modified opening hours/days • Increasing class sizes even further • Reductions in cleaning • Non-replacement of staff when they leave/retire • A halt in all investment in books and IT ________________________ Did you know: • West Sussex is one of the lowest funded council in the country • West Sussex currently gets between £40m - £200m less than other regions for Education • In nearby Brighton & Hove each school receives £300 per pupil premium if they don't speak english as a first language. West Sussex schools get no extra funding for this. ________________________ Nick Gibb MP (for Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, West Sussex) The response from Nick Gibb has been very disappointing to both the headmasters and his constituents so far. In a letter to a local Head Teacher, dated 2 November 2016, West Sussex MP Nick Gibb (Minister for Schools) wrote: “In 2015- 16 we made a step towards fairer funding by adding £390m to the schools budget, targeted at the least fairly funded authorities, including West Sussex. The additional funding for West Sussex was included in their baseline in 2016-17 and is protected for 2017-18.” In this reply Mr Gibb MP doesn’t appear to be acknowledging the funding crisis in this reply. Especially since the £390m mentioned, West Sussex schools received less than £1m (£930k). This represents an increase of less than £10 per child across West Sussex. ________________________ The Worthless? West Sussex Campaign Head Teachers in West Sussex are currently running to campaign to gain additional interim funding of £20million beginning in the financial year, April 2017 with the Worthless? West Sussex Campaign for fairer funding. They need to do this because of long years of under funding by West Sussex County Council, which has now been compounded by the low level being carried over to the funding now allocated directly from Westminster. In their latest letter they said that despite the assistance of some West Sussex MPs and an debate in parliament (Nick Gibb was not in attendance). You can watch here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9b387b6d-28f4-4e0b-9d87-ffd64d3ed678?utm_source=petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=167761&utm_content=Parliament%20TV You can find out more about the WorthLess? West Sussex Campaign on facebook: www.facebook.com/WorthLessWestSussex

There have been debates about the proposed pipeline to transport oil across America for over 2 years. The route chosen appears to be in breach of several treaties between the Government of America and first nation tribes concerning the preservation of sacred land and burial sites; investigation by the the Army Corps of Engineers, charged with ensuring the safety and sustainability of any use of public lands, has been cursory and incomplete. A small group of First Nation people, with support from across the world, are trying to stop the pipeline, not only because of the threat to sacred land but also because of the threat to drinking water. There is significant evidence that their human rights have been breached and that actions by local law officers have been illegal and disproportionate. Full and fair reporting by the BBC would facilitate a wider debate on the important balance between the demands of corporate monopolies and social and environmental protection.

Jo Cox devoted her life to helping the vulnerable, and died attempting to protect the unarmed from a murderer. I believe that this exemplary behaviour warrants recognition at a high level in line with other similar acts of bravery regardless of personal cost.

In an emergency, every second counts. The cuts being proposed by Avon Fire & Rescue Service would compromise our ability to get to an emergency quickly and would limit our use of vital, specialist equipment to fight fires and rescue people. The cuts would mean the loss of 49 firefighter jobs, removal of full time cover at night from Yate Fire Station and downgrading vital aerial appliances and a heavy rescue tender which covers the motorway network. We know times are tight, but these cuts would compromise the safety of the public and of firefighters. Demand that public safety is put ahead of budget cuts. Please sign our petition and say NO to dangerous cuts. Thank you, Avon FBU.

As it stands, the current Extradition Act between the UK and the USA will expose every British citizen to arrest and extradition by President Elect Trump's new Attorney General without UK judicial review. The human rights organization Liberty describes the injustice of the current extradition bill in detail here: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/other-campaigns/extradition-watch

I believe this is entirely wrong and completely disgusting while there are homeless people in this country, disabled people having their means of transport and care taken off them, lone parents like me who are having to beg and go through the torturous DWP system for a small amount of support while off work with health problems, while people are going to food banks for food to feed their children. The royal family already have sumptuous places to live and do not need to spend this money while the government are forcing austerity on us.

"A peerage would bring Mr Farage into Parliament, to which he has consistently failed to be elected." Nigel Farage consistently slammed the EU for being undemocratic and continuously sung the song that our laws are being influenced by unelected officials. People who voted to leave Europe did so for these reasons, amongst others, and so for Farage to be made a lord would be entirely inappropriate. 52% of the EU referendum voters do not want this going on - the referendum already told us that, and Farage himself led the campaign to leave - however, there are surely few people within the 48% of Remainers who would like to see this peerage granted either. This would be the final nail in the coffin of the UK's pale imitation of a democracy. More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-peerage-theresa-may-pmqs-live-house-of-lords-a7420881.html

As per the UN Findings, Grave Violations is serious and it appears Ministers / MPs think they can merely dismiss. Large numbers of people have been seriously affected by policies and measures, cuts and 'austerity'. Lives have been lost and many more are extremely suffering, distressed at how they will keep a roof over head or put food on the table and so on. It has also been observed that there is a great unfairness in that Corporations and the rich have tax cuts, banks were previously bailed out, MPs claim expenses for second homes and there is a trait of 'Government mates' deals by Conservative Government. It is also observed in such matters that management consultants are employed unnecessarily, that charge the public purse excessive amounts for template reports on how councils can make cuts - yet this was exposed recently by BBC 2 under 'Who's Spending Britain's Billions'. Plus there are unknown expenditures on systems with pretend aim to save monies, that cost more (on the face of things). What this reflects is the constant attacks on the poor or sick and disabled or low income families should have been avoided. Had the focus been on retrieving unpaid taxes by tax 'dodgers' and we believe HMRC had stated £34 Billion uncollected tax as a total, you can see there was a great imbalance when discriminating with those policies that the UN deems to have breached Human Rights and Discriminated against protected groups.

The integrity of democracy, and that tax payer owned or funded projects are financed on merit, with no gain what so ever to our government and public representatives or family, whether it is cash or gain or perceived gain of any kind to these individuals.

In the current post-Brexit climate of uncertainty the UK Government will be seeking opportunities for beneficial trade deals with the US under Trump. This threatens to condone Trump's racist, Islamophobic and sexist policies in the eyes of the world. Diplomatic relations between the UK and US must be used to check Trump's maverick disregard for the equal rights and dignity of all US citizens and, at the same time, send a clear message in the UK (and throughout the world) that sexism and racism will not be tolerated by advanced democratic nations. Trump may have been voted in, but votes do not trump human rights.

It has become increasingly obvious that those seeking political office or power and the media cannot be relied upon to fairly and accurately represent the facts to win their arguments. This polarised exaggeration has now reached the stage where it becomes increasingly impossible for people to make an informed choice on issues essential to the wellbeing and future of our society. I propose that new legislation be introduce to limit the malicious use of false statements to further agenda’s in public office or debate, while it is a fundamental principal that free speech is an essential aspect of modern society checks and balances must be borough in to address the increasing tendencies to exaggerate or make up facts to win elections. Malice the desire to harm someone; ill will. Law wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offences. I propose the definition be expanded to include the desire to harm another argument, wilfully putting forward false facts or failing to check facts pertinent to a proposition would become a crime and there should be consequence’s for wilfully doing so, the use of these strategies to win an election should also be sufficient grounds to declare the election void and any results invalid. In our modern age it is quite reasonable to insist large media campaigns perform with integrity and that the current trend for excessive false statement’s be challenged. Please do not respond with anything implying The Seven principles of public life (that were first set out in 1995 by Lord Nolan, the founding Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life) cover this, as they obviously are not working and are not being enforced. Any basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office MUST be backed with legislation or are meaningless plattitudes brough up to avoid the serious underlying issues threatening our democracy.