The attempt to control lobbyists enacted under the Cameron government was a travesty of the reforms proposed by a Select Committee of the Commons. Instead of restraining the activities of lobbyists on behalf of major companies, the new law only restricted the activities of firms which offered their services to commercial enterprises while simultaneously placing heavy burdens on charities, trade unions and NGOs.

The University of Portsmouth informed its students via email on 7/11/2016 that both new and continuing students will be forced to pay £9,250 for the next academic year. Every year seems to hold another increase to our ever-growing piles of debt. Scrapping the maintenance grant in exchange for a bigger loan. Increasing the interest rate at which we pay them back. At the current rate tuition fees will surpass £10,000 within the next few years and I've had enough. I didn't sign up expecting my fees to increase during my time here and regardless of the fine print the University didn't communicate this information to me before starting my degree, nor did they before I started this academic year. Current students should not see a fee increase. As Faculty Representative for Technology I feel it is my duty to speak out against the Universities decision to raise fees and urge my colleagues to do the same. I've been a proud student at Portsmouth since 2014. It's ignited my passion for learning, helping others and you won't find somebody with more love for this city. It's hard to believe as somebody who left college with a BTEC in music and no sense of direction years ago I now stand to graduate at the end of my course with an integrated Masters in Mechanical Engineering. By letting these fees increase all we do is discourage people from making that leap. I've directed this petition to Paul Hayes, who spoke last year at the course rep conference, who assured me that our voice matters. This affects every student current and future and if we do not take a stand now, the problem will only grow.

Recent attacks on the judiciary are an attack on our plural democracy -- an attack on our representative democracy with a number of independent institutions which act as checks and balances to one another. The failure of the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary to defend the judiciary against these attacks -- when they are merely doing their duty in ensuring that the government acts in accordance with the law and respects parliament -- marks either a massive failing to understand our form of government or a wanton disregard of fundamental underpinnings of our plural democracy in the face of party interests. This marks a key move in the Trumpization of the governance of our country.

Science has not yet proven that GM food do not have a health changing impact on fauna and the environment. Neither in the USA nor in UK or Europe are consumers interested in GM modified foods. Please urge this government to stop licensing GM modified foods until science can prove, that these food will have no impact on any living beings health. Perhaps we should encourage all world citizens to stop breeding like rabbits and take birth control. Than there will be no need to destroy nature for GM foods and agriculture. Perhaps we humans could learn something from Badgers

Waitrose should not be supporting a newspaper that is so blatantly promoting hate and bigotry. Waitrose is part of the John Lewis family who are proud to be inclusive of their staff and have strong foundation in cooperative working. Promoting the Mail is fundamentally against their brand.

There is an urgent need for the Prime Minister to respond appropriately to yesterday's High Court judgement. Every PM's first responsibility, beyond any narrow party consideration, is to uphold the rule of law and defend the independence os the judiciary. Mrs May should make crystal clear , however inconvenient it may be for her, firstly that the judges responsibilty is to interpret the law and secondly that it is her rsponsibilty to work within the law. The outpouring of hate and of death threats together with the ignorant attacks on the judges represent a very real threat to peace and stability. We have already had one MP murdered. There is now a real danger that individuals who are perhaps both hot-headed and ignorant of our constitution will be led to believe that direct action is being being sactioned and is therefore justified. The stability of any society depends upon respect for the law. Politicians of all parties have a dury to come together to defend the rule of law. Mrs May's silence is an incitement to anarchy. .

The Boundary Commission for England is planning to get rid of Hove, by ripping out the Hove Park area and moving it into Brighton (a new constituency called ‘Brighton North’), then abolishing the rest of Hove as a separate entity and instead merging it into Brighton – in a new constituency called ‘Brighton Central and Hove’, where Hove gets second billing. As a result, the ancient borough of Hove, as a place in its own right, will disappear from the political map forever. Some will see this as a final nail in Hove’s coffin. And surely no-one who has lived in Hove or Brighton for more than five minutes will think it makes sense. It is, as Albion saviour Dick Knight has called it, an ill-conceived plan that fails “to recognise and understand the unique fabric of the city – two towns united as a city but happily divided by their own distinct identities.” Hove is completely distinct from Brighton – a different town with its own look and feel, architecture, society and social fabric. Chopping Hove up and then making it a junior partner of Brighton brings independent Hove to an end. It destroys Hove’s traditional, natural and deeply embedded community ties and replaces them with new, artificial ties that make no sense. Hove will no longer be Hove. This not only destroys Hove but fundamentally changes the character of the whole area. The loss of Hove threatens to undermine the social fabric of this young city, to the detriment of all. And it will be devastating to the people of Hove. So, Boundary Commission, please keep your Hands off Hove. Campaign website: http://handsoffhove.org/?hovepetition Boundary Commission’s planned map: http://bit.ly/BCEmap Boundary Commission proposals: http://bit.ly/BCEdoc1

For our society to function we need to have respect for our legal framework. The Daily Mail headline of 04 November 2016 referred to three senior judges as "Enemies of the People". It is hard to imagine a headline more contemptuous of senior judges. We believe that such contempt begins a process that could threaten the foundations of our law-abiding society. We note that the offence of sedition was abolished in 2009, and that an action for Contempt of Court is unlikely. We suggest this headline warrants an action under Section 4A or Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We consider such an action would be overwhelmingly in the public interest. ---------------- Is this campaign seeking to 'stir the pot'? No. This campaign is NOT about Brexit. Those who sign up may variously support Brexit, or Remain, or hard or soft Brexit. And this campaign is NOT designed to stifle press debate of judicial decisions. But it is about preserving something essential to Britain's future - the rule of law. What unites us is that we strongly oppose the use of inflammatory or intimidating language directed at the judiciary by the press. We believe there is an existing law that makes this illegal. And we would like that law enforced.

UK Democracy is not well served by the present system and MP's who wish to make a greater contribution to our society will have to work harder for their constituents in their 2 terms also the abolition of the 'Whip' system would increase the MPs responsibilty to reflect the opinion of their constituency as a whole .

The County Council has a legal duty to provide waste disposal free of charge for waste created in the household and through this delegated decision the Conservative leadership is ignoring its legal responsibility to the communities of Staffordshire. The Council should use its discretion to charge directed to business traders and identify these specifically to charge for waste generated from their commercial activities. These new charges have been hidden in County Council paperwork from two years ago and did not receive any meaningful public scrutiny. Further the Council took felt sufficiently concerned about their legal position that they obtained specific advice and concluded that “consultation….is not necessary.” The County Council has a duty to consider the impact of any decisions a cabinet member takes and of particular note is that they acknowledge that the charges will have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable in our community stating clearly the “…greatest impact on low income households.” They have pressed ahead regardless with this discriminatory practice. Secondly, the Council acknowledge that there could be “a small increase” in fly-tipping. We think they have underestimated the increase in fly-tipping which is costly to clean up for the District Council. The Council think that people won’t be tempted to put soil, hardcore and plasterboard in their own bins. We think residents are likely to try and avoid these charges and this will mean less recycling. The Council do not care that they anticipate “some complaints” in the short term because they believe the issue will blow over and we, the residents of Staffordshire, will continue to accept their ill-considered and flawed decision making to the detriment of communities. All quotes from http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/documents/s87805/Review%20of%20Household%20Waste%20Recycling%20Centre%20non-household%20waste.pdf

to prevent more loss of life on our roads

In view of the UN vote to ban nuclear weapons i feel it is only right that parliment has another chance to debate the need for a new nuclear weapons system.