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.

Indycamp is not just a pro-independence camp outside of Holyrood, despite how it is portrayed in the media. It is a camp which continually educates and engages in political discussion about some of the worst social injustices we face as a society. Whether that be unregulated banking, general corruption, austerity, benefits and the vilification of benefits claimants, the NHS or for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - it has continually brought to light some of the more severe issues we face as a society. This case is about more than just the removal of a camp, whether most people realise it or not, it is about the way in which the camp is being removed. You see, Government have used the Scotland Act to transfer public assets, namely the ground around parliament, to a private body, known as the Parliamentary Corporate Body. This body, has at its disposal the full force of parliament and government without having to justify itself to parliament. This sets a dangerous precedent, because when the SPCB took the camp to court, they did so under private law of a corporation and not law applicable to a public organisation. In otherwords, the precedent this sets, is to allow public organisations to transfer land and assets to private entities in order to usurp the public's fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom to protest your own government in a manner of your choosing should you remain peaceful. In a nutshell, it sets the precedent, that all any publicly accountable organisation need do, is transfer its assets to a corporate body and suddenly it does not have to deal with being publicly accountable. I am asking you to support the camp today, not for them, but for yourselves. It is not acceptable for assets you own as a member of the public to be transferred to a private entity. I am asking you to support the camp, because the precedent this will set will erode, not only those at the camps fundamental rights, but also yours as an individual. One day you may wake up after suffering injustice and find that you have to seek permission (like indycamp) from the people you wish to protest, and if you fail to do so, you will find yourself in court, bankrupt and destitute because you refused to ask their permission to protest them. The precedent before the court, of course being the SPCB vs Indycamp. This is not about a camp and land, it is about your fundamental human rights, which you should never have to ask for, but instead should just automatically have.

See Wikileaks -Trade in Services Agreement. This is yet another deal that gives soverignty to International business at the expence of the public. Another case where companies can sue governments if they dont get what they want. Hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for countries! The people have a voice! WE WILL BE HEARD!!!

The Bill if enacted would effectively repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012, once again make the Secretary of State for Health responsible to Parliament for the NHS, properly fund it from general taxation and end the rush for privatisation inherent in that Act. We can expect Conservative MPs with big majorities to side with the government, but many of them with small majorities may well abstain. Labour and SNP MPs could join forces to make sure the Bill goes forward. For Labour MPs in particular, this will show whether or not they truly want the 1948 NHS to be fully restored.

To much privatisation is happening to the NHS .. 70 MPs and 140 Lords have some sort of investment or involvement with private healthcare companies that we know of ..I believe that giving them a vote on NHS issues brings to mind a conflict of interest

Publication of photos and personal details can risk the security of unaccompanied young people, who are known to be at a high risk of human trafficking and may be exposed to hate crime. The language used by The Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express to describe these young people arriving from the 'jungle' camp in Calais is incendiary and inhumane. The deliberate questioning of age, without due care to safety or lawful processes, has the very real potential to expose individuals to abuse, racism and hatred whilst in the UK. International law makes it clear that anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Unaccompanied children frequently have no documents to prove their age. Some don’t even know their own chronological age. Others have had their identities faked by human traffickers. There is a duty on the UK to give those in such situations the ‘benefit of the doubt’ where there is reason to believe they may be a child. The current approach of 'trial by media' undermines these young people's right to fair and impartial assessments of their individual circumstances. It ignores well-established, legal processes that are designed to protect those most in need and undermines the validity of the laws to protect children and refugees. ECPAT UK is a leading children’s rights organisation campaigning to prevent child trafficking, transnational child abuse and child exploitation for the past 20 years. To complement our research, policy and campaigning activity, we run peer support groups for child victims of trafficking and deliver training to a broad range of professionals. For more info about our charity, visit: www.ecpat.org.uk.

Rushcliffe Borough Council have proposed plans to fine homeless people £100 under the 2014 "Public Space Protection Order". Rushcliffe Borough Council believe that the rough sleepers cause a "nuisance" to those who live locally. Fines can be increased to £1000 following non-payment of the original fine. The idea of fining those who already have so little that they are forced to sleep out in the cold is a cruel and heartless act. This is attacking vulnerable persons and does not aid in resolving the homeless issues. Other campaigns have successfully halted other councils from imposing similar fines. More info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37693295?client=ms-android-htc-rev

In 2010, the US government passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) obliging US citizens, regardless of dual citizenships and even though they may not have lived in the US since childhood, to self-report their non-US assets and to pay US tax on foreign income if the foreign tax should be less than US tax. For example, if such persons sell their home, then they are liable for American capital gains tax on the sale as the UK levies no such tax. FATCA obliges all non-US financial institutions to search through their customer databases to identify those customers suspected of being US citizens and to disclose the account holders' names, addresses, and the transactions of most types of account. It requires foreign financial institutions to require all foreign account holders (not just US citizens) to certify their foreign status. In 2014, The Economist called FATCA's "extraterritoriality stunning even by Washington's standards." FATCA potentially affects 173,470 people born in the US by chance but many of whom left the country as small children and have since been resident in the UK and are UK citizens. Following FATCA's passage, many such "accidental Americans" suffered closure of their bank accounts: a 2014 survey of US citizens in other countries by Democrats Abroad found that 12.7% of respondents had been denied financial services by their banks, making it harder for accidental Americans to live and work in their countries of residence. Accidental Americans often no owe US income tax, but must spend thousands of dollars in accounting fees to prove that fact, and face potential fines of tens of thousands of dollars for paperwork errors. Those who have spent their lives planning for their retirement without considering the US tax consequences of the non-US financial instruments they hold may find that US taxation wipes out most of their returns on investments. UK residents suspected to be US citizens are separated out at their financial institutions for differential treatment, based upon their place of birth and nationality. Discrimination according to national origin is prohibited in most countries and by the European Convention on Human Rights. American Citizens Abroad, a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of the millions of Americans residing outside the United States, points out that FATCA's problem is citizenship-based taxation. The United States and Eritrea are the only countries in the world which impose taxation and reporting requirements on citizens living abroad permanently. The Guardian reports that Americans living abroad feel financially terrorized by FATCA requirements. According to research by Democrats Abroad: "These survey results show the intense impact FATCA is having on overseas Americans. Their financial accounts are being closed, their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain, some Americans are being denied promotion or partnership in business because of FATCA reporting requirements and some are planning or contemplating renouncing their US citizenship”. The US will not allow accidental Americans to renounce citizenship until they have filed five years’ of tax returns. Due to the rise in applications, the fee for renouncing citizenship was raised by roughly 400 percent in 2015 to $2,350. According to a recent piece in The Economist, a UK resident who was born in America but moved to Britain as a child, “recently received a huge bill from the IRS [the US Internal Revenue Service], out of the blue, for many years of unfiled taxes. He had not realised that he owed anything; he had always paid taxes promptly in Britain. The IRS was so aggressive that he feared he might lose his technology business; he even discussed divorce with his wife as a way to shield their assets. In the end, he settled for a six-figure sum.” In 2014, the UK Government entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement whereby financial institutions in the UK report information about US accounts to HMRC. HMRC then provides the information to the US. The UK government has estimated that the cost to British businesses will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years, in order to locate the US citizens. HMRC estimates its own one-off IT and staff project costs at approximately £5m, with ongoing annual costs of £1.4m from this year. FATCA’s effects on UK citizens who by accident of birth are deemed American means that the UK Government’s cooperation with FATCA must end. The relationship between the British state and its citizens is founded on an implicit contract whereby, in exchange for obedience to the law and performance of their civic duties, citizens have a right to the state’s protection.