From Monday 1 August this year, students starting university courses in England will no longer be able to apply for grants towards living costs. Grants for students from low-income homes will now be replaced by loans. Previously, students from families with annual incomes of £25,000 or less received a full grant of £3,387 a year. The National Union of Students have said the move was "disgraceful" and meant poorer students would be saddled with a lifetime of debt. The switch from grants to maintenance loans was announced in July 2015 by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, in his Budget. Mr Osborne said at the time that there was a "basic unfairness in asking taxpayers to fund grants for people who are likely to earn a lot more than them". But is it fair that the very MPs who belong to a generation whose further education was largely funded by the tax payer are now denying the same opportunities to learn to the poorest in our society? Isn't it true that we as a society benefit when those people whose studies we've helped to fund go on to bring us innovations as scientists, better health care as doctors, consultants and surgeons, or improvements to industry and infrastructure as engineers for example? To say that we can't afford this investment is ridiculous. If we can afford to invest in a weapon system we've said we'll never realistically use then surely we can afford to invest in our future generations? So please sign to urge the government to think again and return maintenance grants to those who simply can't afford to study without them.

The UK must be seen to be totally opposed to the prosecutions and media censorship being employed by those currently in power.

His final and lasting recommendations (including an award for his wife's stylist!) reek of croneyism and will only serve to diminish any reverence for, or belief in, the Honours System. It is time for a thorough review of the rules and practices governing these matters.

It is important to regain the trust of the electorate that these honours are awarded only to the deserving few rather than to donors and friends

George Osborne developed and implemented one of the most devastating economic policies in modern history. Not only was the programme a disaster for the poorest Britons, his "austerity" economic policy was based on a lie. The policies he developed could not be supported by any sound economic theories and time and time again these policies were proven to be a disaster for the poorest people in the UK. The economic research used to push forward his programme was proven to be false as early as 2010. As a direct result millions of people in the UK were forced into a volunteer work scheme where they were forced to work up to 30 hours a week for free. This allowed large companies to benefit from free labour and increase their profits. The scheme collapsed after six months due to the public outcry. When Osborne became chancellor of the exchequer there were just over 61,000 people in the UK using food banks. After 6 years of his disastrous austerity programme there are now over a million Britons who rely on food banks to survive. The "bedroom tax" and other cuts to benefits lead to an increase in poverty amongst disabled people and the austerity measures undoubtedly had a bigger impact on women and the poorest of households. The austerity programme was hastily abandoned by Theresa May's government but the disastrous impacts will be seen for decades to come. The austerity programme implemented by Osborne pushed more Britons into poverty. Osborne should not receive any awards for making millions of people worse off.

This is an injustice towards a charity which works at preserving life and caring for the well being of our environment. Also, large companies like this shouldn't be allowed to control peoples lands and charge such ridiculous amounts.

It is important because if the bookies were closed down or there was no bookies at all the people that lose money on fruit machines, horse betting etc would have that money in their pocket. Instead of thinking that they can use the last pounds that they may have in their pockets to be taken by a machine.

Nottinghamshire council and the police should be offering practical and emotional support to the most vulnerable to help get them back on their feet. Even if someone does have an addiction they should still be given 100 % support as it is an illness and should be treated as such, getting them the right help needed rather than isolating them further.

Do I really need to explain why this is important? I thought that would be obvious. Inequality, exploitation, discrimination are just 3 reasons. Maybe an incentive too?

Claims that being on the streets is 'anti-social' have nothing to do with the brutal reality of those ending up there or giving them somewhere to live and is simply an attempt to socially cleanse those hardest hit by the housing crisis from sight: this callous and stupid policy must be dropped as soon as possible.

In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.

Children are living in poverty!