This government have made pledge after pledge , promise after promise to repair the damage from this disaster and to ensure that it never happens again, yet they have kept none of their promises . There is substantial evidence to show that logging has been a major cause of flooding in the region and yet the priority isn't to restore the road for local people but use it to recommence the very activity that caused the problem in the first place. This government has no concern for the environment or local interest but only for profit. It continues to make the same mistakes for its own greed. "The A591 repairs are a blag,it is in working order apart from the GAP which they are not working on,they seem to be concentrating their efforts on forestry operations! Something must be done!!! I saw lots of heavy forestry machinery using the road which is strange as we are being told it is undermined and I saw no evidence of the whole mountain moving!!!" 30 January 2016

This is a smoke screen to avoid public accountability. It is supposed to be a time when serious questions are asked and serious questions are answered. MP's represent the public and the public have both the right to be heard and answered. MP's when ridiculed, held to scorn and derision, are standing in the place of the Public and should behave and be treated accordingly. PMQ's has become a Circus.

Current draft guidance from Ofcom (which would affect the coverage of private broadcasters such a STV) categorises four of the five parties currently represented in Holyrood as 'major parties', the Scottish Labour Party, SNP, Scottish Conservatives, & Scottish Liberal Democrats. The fifth party in parliament, the Scottish Greens, fall under the 'minor parties' category alongside UKIP. This is despite UKIP having no representation at Holyrood at any point in it's history. Since the parliament's inception five parties have been continuously represented, the five represented currently. To treat one of these parties as being in a tier below the rest, particularly given the Greens' strong polling over the last two years, would create an unfair and unbalanced broadcasting environment for the election.

Parliament has to be renovated. It's crumbling and the roof is leaking. To renovate with MPs in situ would cost £2.2bn more than if they moved out and take up to 29 years longer according to a BBC report. MPs might not like it, but moving out permanently to another part of the country is a no brainer. In any case no other western democracy has the political, financial, sporting, tourism and cultural centres in one city. The UK does. Its crippling the country. It causes immense congestion in London and massive distortion to the economy as a whole and as a result makes it more difficult for the UK to compete. So why do our MPs not want you to read this? It is surprising. Permanently moving Parliament and providing on-site residential accommodation would give our MPs the opportunity to prove that they are not the self seeking, greedy individuals, loathed by many as a result of the expenses scandal. How? Well they would no longer own second homes that had their mortgages paid for by the public purse, but which they could sell at a vast profit when they left Parliament. There would be no profit for them if they lived in purpose built, publicly owned accommodation in the South West, North East or West Midlands for instance. They would be doing something that was in the public interest but not in their own. That they won't do it without there is a huge public outcry is a given and even then they will fight and rubbish this suggestion. The region that gets the new Parliament would see huge investment and employment opportunities open up. Civil with massive savings in unemployment benefits and big increases in income tax revenues. This money could be invested elsewhere in the UK, thus ensuring all regions benefit. The investment would be No region would suffer. Londoners would see price pressure on homes reduce, but tourism related jobs increase. House inflation would be controlled and not ripple out to the rest of the country in the way it does now, thus helping to keep the cost of living stable. And the boost the poorest region got by hosting Parliament would reduce dependency and mean there could be lower taxes or increased spending for all regions. So this hurts no region and benefits all. Please help push our MPs into taking this action by signing this petition and then requesting your MP to give their support. They will have to vote at some point in this Parliament and it is important they get this decision right.

It is important that all disabled veterans are supported by the government as it is the same government that placed them in areas of conflict that has resulted in them requiring financial supports as a result of the injuries they received while serving their country this including loss of mobility, loss of their ability to maintain their basic personal care, ie such as washing dressing, nutrition. Please support this petition to ensure that those U.K veterans who have been left permanently disabled do not also find themselves financially disadvantaged due to the these changes. Ian Duncan Smith needs to remove this process, provide a fair system and be forced to support disabled veterans and not just on Poppy Day. It will only take a few minutes of your time, but a life time of difference to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

Our environment is important to us and it's about time we started to realise this. We need to focus on renewable energy. I believe a stronger stance against fracking would also gain the SNP more support.

Increasing numbers of homeless people are being arrested for begging around the country. In 2013-14, 2771 cases were brought before the courts, a 70% increase on the previous year. Police use an archaic law which deems those found begging to be 'idle and disorderly'. Begging was made a recordable offence in 2003 against the strong criticisms of civil rights groups and homelessness organisations. Those prosecuted can be fined up to £1000 excluding court charges when found with just a few pennies. Those who have 'gathered alms' (that is, accepted money, food or other material goods offered to them) can be prosecuted under this same law with the same consequences. Some people are kept in cells for several nights. Although begging in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence, if the person is already on bail for another case a simple arrest for begging can lead to imprisonment. Those who are fined will inevitably have to beg more to pay off these fines, risking further arrests and fines, a punishment which stands out in its absurdity. Punishing the destitute for trying to survive is both costly and morally abhorrent. It is a waste of tax payers' money which is spent paying police who 'catch people out' in organised undercover operations, as well as on court cases to prosecute them. The minimum cost of bringing one case to the Magistrates' Court is £1000, meaning that in the year 2013-14, bringing begging cases before the courts cost the taxpayer at least £2.777 million. This is money that could be spent helping people rather than punishing them. Police also routinely move homeless people on under part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) which gives police the power to confiscate property and exclude individuals from a particular area for up to 48 hours, with the officer also able to impose by what manner and route the person must leave. Failure to comply is a criminal offence which can result in a £2500 fine or 3 months in prison. Refusing to surrender your property is punishable by a fine of up to £500. The two conditions needed by officers to issue a dispersal order are firstly, that the constable has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder, and secondly, that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of (a) or (b)'. Given that begging is a crime considered 'idle and disorderly', the two laws in tandem essentially give police de facto power to exclude any homeless person from any area simply because they think it is likely that the person, being homeless, might beg there. The highly subjective definition of 'anti-social behaviour' as that which contributes or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed reinforces this and even with the decriminalisation of begging, would still give police the power to move on any homeless person from any area simply because they believe doing so is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of members of the public being distressed by seeing them. Seeing people forced to live on the streets is distressing to much of the public for good reason, but this compassionate distress means that under this definition a homeless person is considered to be exhibiting anti-social behaviour simply by existing visibly. The anti-social behaviour that causes the public distress is not caused by the homeless person however, but by the authorities' failure to provide people with shelter in a country that has 600,000 empty homes. As described by someone living on the street, being asked to move on when you have nowhere to go is like being asked to walk into a brick wall. These laws and their enforcement victimize vulnerable people who are already suffering the daily struggle of life on the streets or in insecure and unstable temporary accommodation. We believe that kicking someone for limping when it is you who cut off their leg is shameless and cruel. We believe that the government should be providing homes for the homeless, not handcuffs. We therefore call on parliament to repeal without replacement section 3 of the Vagrancy Act (1824), to amend part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to safeguard homeless people from its discriminatory use, and for an ultimate end to the criminalisation of homelessness by any and all other laws that may be newly concocted or dug up for this purpose. If you have an MP who may be sympathetic, get in touch with them to push this issue to parliament. We launched this petition at our demo at Brighton Magistrate's court on the 20th January.

Why in 2016 when the government are looking to make cuts, should they be immune to the same austerity they force so many others to live with? Last year a reported 1.1 million people were forced into using food banks, this year they are trying to force our NHS to do more, with less. They have already attacked the disabled, and raised tuition fees for those looking to further their education while at the same time taking a pay rise. Why should they get to claim personal expenses? Especially when the average MP salary is £67,060. The UK average salary is reported to be £26,500, and yet you and I have to pay for our own food, our own travel expenses, as well as our own day to day living expenses. Whilst I understand that staffing costs make up nearly three quarters of the total MP expenses budget, staffing and office costs as well as reasonable long distance travel costs should be managed by the IPSA. Any other personal claims simply shouldn't be allowed. Let's stand together and remind the Government they stand in office to serve the greater goods best interest and not their own.

The Financial Conduct Authority recently dropped it's review into Banking Culture, reportedly under alleged Government pressure (or leaning) as reported by the BBC., however this is denied by the treasury. I ask that we pressure the government to reinstate the review. McDonnell said: “This will be a huge blow to customers and taxpayers who are all still paying the price for the failed culture in the banking sector that’s been widely attributed to be among the main causes of the crash and the scandals over Libor and price-fixing.” He said the FCA was making a “dangerous and costly mistake”. “The chancellor therefore cannot stay silent on this issue. It’s time he used his influence to keep this review going. Otherwise he’s letting down the rest of us who bailed the banks out and also allowing a signal to be sent to carry on regardless. Given the scale and severity of the failings in the financial sector and the criminal behaviour shown by some banks, the scrapping of the FCA’s review into banking culture sends the wrong message at the wrong time,”. Also The review was included in the FCA’s business plan for 2015, but was dropped after an initial assessment found it difficult to compare different cultures inside banks. The decision to abandon the review follows the resignation of the FCA chief executive, Martin Wheatley, after the chancellor forced him out in July. A permanent replacement has not been named to take over from Wheatley, who had flagged his tough stance towards the industry by warning he would shoot first and ask questions later.

It is imperative in a democracy that the electorate are informed by a news media that is unbiased and can effectively present news in a balanced way. It is concerning that staff at the BBC are appearing to manipulate the news and it is vital that this publicly funded institution is not using its position to abuse the public trust. The revelations in a recent blog by BBC producer Andrew Alexander, was very clear about how staff at the Corporation manipulated news to “make an impact.” This resulted in a member of the Shadow Front Bench Stephen Doughty, resigning live on air during the Wednesday 6th January 2016 edition of The Daily Politics. The blog went on to express how staff were delighted to have seen how this story was brought up by the Prime Minister in his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition. “As Andrew Neil handed from the studio to the Commons chamber we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn. "During our regular debrief after coming off air at 1pm we agreed our job is always most enjoyable when a big story is breaking – but even more so when it’s breaking on the programme” There is considerable disquiet that the BBC is not fulfilling its public duty to report the news in a fair and balanced way. This has come to the fore since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of The Labour Party. This blog by Andrew Alexander will cause concern everyone who cares about the unbiased reporting of the news.

Mears helps the elderly to remain in their own homes. Elderly neighbours and relatives have found this service vital when they did not know who else to turn to. The cost is reasonable and the workmen are very good and caring.

"No parent should have to hold their children and comfort them as they die, or be told that their child has been harmed in an act of revenge or rage." Claire Throssell, mother of Jack and Paul who were killed in October 2014 by their father after he was granted unsupervised contact with them by the family court. Nine years since their tragic deaths, Women’s Aid’s Child First campaign has seen real progress. In 2017, new guidance was published for judges making decisions about child contact in cases of domestic abuse and, in 2020, the government committed to make the family courts safer for adult and child survivors. But women going through the family courts continue to experience harm and children's voices continue to be unheard, with devastating consequences. Since we launched this petition in 2016, there have been at least two further children killed by an abusive parent in circumstances. In 2020, a ground-breaking report on the family court, called the ‘Harm Panel report’, found that the courts have a ‘pro-contact’ culture – a deeply held commitment to ensuring both parents maintain contact with a child. Survivors of domestic abuse tell us that this puts their children in danger and means serious allegations of abuse are ignored. The report made a number of recommendations to ensure the culture of the family court changes and children's safety at the heart of any decisions about contact, including reviewing the 'presumption of parental involvement'. We are calling on the government to make their commitment to children’s safety clear, once and for all, by implementing all the recommendations in Harm Panel report.