It has been stated that the owners are free to demolish this 1937 building, as it does not meet the criteria to be listed on the State Register of Heritage Places - However the people of Perth feel this is a building of history, beautiful architecture and are fed up of Perth beautiful history being demolished. This does not just effect the people of Nedlands but all of Perth's people and its history.the Art Deco and Modernist Society has been working very hard for many years to save our heritage - the Windsor Theatre is a major example of the Art Deco style of theatre we are blessed with and one of very few examples of this wonderful era we should be preserving not condemning to developers.

Mobile thereapists never received a penny in help the last lockdown. Now another is beginning , so another 4 weeks of worry for them and no MONEY to live on. My Neice experienced this which made her ill through worry. Why has the Government not helped these people , it is as if they do not exist.. Many go and see the elderly in their homes , give massages give facials and do nails which a lot of elderly people cannot manage themselves. Hairdressers are the same .Will the Government HELP financially this time ????

This is because we are frontline and have more exposure to the public than others do. We have worked through the first lockdown without a pay rise or much support and now we are expected to do the same again. None of us are able to access a covid test unless we display symptoms and it is not good enough anymore. We deserve to be prioritised over others, because of our work and also due to the fact that we are keeping the economy afloat. It is most disheartening when rich and famous people can access covid tests easily, however those of us on the frontline cannot. We should have protection and it would help to stop it spreading. It or our right to have a covid swab at least monthly. It is also to protect our families and those people in our care.

Because we have had the same financial impact on our lives,but seem to have been forgotten by the government..everyone e in the country has had some form.of furlough money,apart from the newly self employed

With another national lockdown about to begin, once again the self employed are being unfairly treated. Through the SEISS scheme, the self employed have already missed out on 2 months worth of support. Payment 1 was for ‘3 months to May’ so March, April, May. Therefore the second payment is for June, July, August. But now, the third payment is for November, December, January and the fourth is for February, March and April. What happened to September and October?? Please account for the missing months. Now we are heading into a second lockdown where 80% furlough is extended but the self employed are expected to survive a second lockdown on 40% support (with no support at all for the last 2 months). Please review this and make it fair.

Sean Connery rose from a humble background in Edinburgh's Fountainbridge to become one of the most iconic and much-loved actors of all time. He was a great ambassador for the city and for Scotland as a whole, and a man who proved that Scots can achieve great things.

The average UK salary is £30k. The basic MP salary is £81k (putting them in the top 5%). On top of this MPs can take other well-paid jobs for example in journalism or public speaking and claim for expenses, sometimes in the region of £50k. The average person is unable to claim expenses, their only option is to seek extra help in the form of benefits where their incomes and assets are thoroughly assessed and help is denied if they are lucky enough to have over £16k in savings, and minimized if they have over £6k in savings. This disparity needs assessing. MPs complacency and reliance on expenses breeds contempt for the average person looking for a little extra support but it's the MPs who are truly receiving the "hand-out" that they claim to despise. With such a large divide between wealth, means and class, how can MPs truly relate to their constituents? Can an MP with savings worth £2M and claiming £40K expenses really understand what it's like to be living on £28K and struggling to sustain a family because you're oh-so-slowly saving up (£17k in 6 years!) to buy a house so the kids don't have to share a room?

They put their lives on the line like their handlers, what should they have less rights. These dogs prevent a family getting the awful knock on the door, they prevent a soldier standing on a device that could at least change their life and they show the direction of danger at every turn. This alone should grant them free healthcare, they do this without permission, men and women volunteer, the dogs are voluntold!!!

This is affecting a lot of leaseholders, we feel deceived, taken advantage and have been facing am ongoing battle against professional extorters.

Paying annually financially rewards those that are capable of paying road tax as an annual lump sum. There is no doubt a large number of people who can't afford to pay the annual fee upfront; so opt for the 6 month option. Why are these people, who are financially less able, penalised into paying a larger total annual sum? Changing this practice, of charging more to those who can least afford it, needs to STOP! This systemic bias which financially penalises the poorer in society needs to be abolished. The systems and decisions that continue to widen financial inequalities need to be rooted out in all industries and organisations. This type of financial penalisation of the poorer members of our society is rife practice in many companies. The government should lead by example and put an end to this practice!

As soon as one starts to get a State Pension you lose any Carers Allowance (already at a ridiculously low rate!). Carers provide an enormous saving to the Government and at the very time of greatest need they are penalised unfairly.

The BBC, nor any organisation, cannot and should not dictate what legal activities their employees engage in outside of work, as they have a right to respect for private and family life as set out in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, supporting equality and demanding fundamental human rights for disadvantaged and minority groups across the race and gender spectrums, amongst others, is not a political partial act, as the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 clearly set out the obligations of the government and society they represent; merely asking for these obligations to be met is not a political action and Tim Davie and the BBC should acknowledge this, or be guilty of the very partiality they claim to be trying to avoid.