She represents the good people in the Telford and Wrekin area and has knowingly lied about such a serious matter. Namely that she was sent a death threat. This is unacceptable and MPs should not be allowed to be so liberal with the truth. MPs are accountable for their actions and this is morally wrong and a misuse of her position in government.

Being a victim of revenge porn is a devastating experience. It is not fair that victims who take the brave step of pressing charges against their abuser currently risk being named in the media, particularly in coverage of the court case. We want the Government to change the law to ensure victims get the protection they deserve.

It will serve to make our roads safer and will make work easier for the Police. It will potentially help to drive down insurance premium costs.

Anglesey is already blighted with a corridor of Pylons across the Island. The National Grid are proposing to erect another line of Pylons across the Island to deal with the new supply of electric from Wylfa Newydd. It appears that they have already decided upon this option as it is the cheapest and most straight forward solution, they appear to dismiss out of hand the alternative of underground cables despite the objection of local residents to yet more Pylons affecting the visual impact and the concern of possible links to Cancer in the local population, including young children. Anglesey relies a great deal on Tourism, more Pylons blighting the Island can only have a detrimental affect. Please show your support for the use of Underground Cables only!

Bees are dying. This is having great affect on our environment if action is not taken quickly the damage won't be repairable. Bees provide us with food in the form of honey, pollination and they also produce many other natural products which we benefit from.

Pets on Eurostar believe that non drivers are being discriminated against by this ban from Eurostar. If you agree, please sign the petition on our home page. We intend to approach not only the directors of Eurostar but our Ministers for Transport at Whitehall and Brussels.

The current monetary system, now world-wide, grew from history, the interactions of people, companies and nation states. It contains an unsustainable effect, a flaw, as money needed for circulation is created as debt to be repaid with interest. Thus there is a charge against future production, requiring continued increase in production, and somewhere bankruptcy and/or exploitation occurs, such the cycles of boom and bust and rampant inequality that have been shown to be ever more severe. This system is not only unsustainable, it is destructive. Monetary system reform seeks specifically to consider the way that money is created, who creates it and how it gets into the economy. There are viable alternative systems* that would democratise money and enable a more optimally functioning economy, responsive to productivity and need. Economists, and banks, including the Bank of England, recognize that “money” is not a thing in itself, it is a symbol of an agreed value for goods, services, work performed, things needed or wanted. Most economic theories are about “what money does”, how it can be used and transferred, how quickly does it circulate, what kinds of uses and modes of transfer will produce what results for investment and returns in the future, and for which sectors of society. Economists, knowing that money is a symbol, seldom address “What money is?” nor “Where does it come from?” nor “How is it created?” These unaddressed questions lie within a social and economic history that have produced the Monetary System, within which economics is applied. As these decisions are at present taken by banks, it is the banking corporations that direct significant distributional socioeconomic effects, mortgage lending being favoured over small business loans being one of the most obvious. We might say: we can’t eat bricks, but a bank loan does not make judgments of social value. It is therefore right and just that banks should be subject to democratic scrutiny, just as any corporation is subject. Banks are private and unelected corporate entities, offering to society a money management service. When this service is seen as different from “money creation”, perception of the system as a whole can change. Banks are corporations who have been given this privilege, and part of the privilege is that over time the repayment of interest brings money out of the productive economy and into the wealth of the bank. It also ensures that debt is always greater than the money supply, and further, that debt will increase faster than the money supply. The economy in each nation state, and indeed the world economy, affecting the lives of everyone on it and even the nature of the planet itself, can run on a reformed system. For all our goods and services, we could create a “Monetary System” that is sustainable and fit for purpose, first within our own nation, then by interactive co-operation we would affect others. “Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws, Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.” – William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister of Canada, August 2, 1935 (quote courtesy of Canadian Monetary Reform News) This petition asks that an enquiry into the monetary system and alternatives to it be set up, in order to create an Equitable Monetary System in which money creation is democratised. A ‘wealth’ of further information from: • http://positivemoney.org/ • http://www.neweconomics.org • http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q101.pdf

James Clerk Maxwell stands beside Einstein and Newton in the trinity of physicists who explained how the universe works. The other two are global superstars, but Maxwell is barely known in his own country, Scotland. To celebrate a great man and encourage future generations to take risks and think big, Maxwell should be the face on the next RBS banknote. The greatest Scotsman to ever live deserves to be a household name.

David Cameron announced we’ll welcome 20,000 more Syrian refugees. But there’s a catch. This will take 5 years, leaving thousands of refugees in limbo. It’s now up to us to show that in cities, towns and villages all across the country we’re ready to welcome people now. Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety.We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria. So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need. Please sign and share, or start your own petition for your town or city here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/refugees-welcome

64% of us don't want student loans to be privatised - the government needs to listen. This plan doesn't make financial sense and needs to be scrapped. Martin Wolf from the Financial Times explains ‘Why the UK should not sell its student loan book’: “The UK Treasury is, it is reported, considering the sale of parts of its student loan book. This provokes a big question: when should the UK government sell such an asset – given that it is both immortal and solvent? The best answer has two parts. First, it must be believed that the asset would be better managed by the private sector. And, second, it must be believed that this superior private management can only be introduced by selling the assets – rather than introducing some type of private management contract. Thus, if the government decided to privatise the Royal Bank of Scotland, it should be because the value of the business would be higher under private ownership than it would be under public ownership. What the government paid for RBS shares is irrelevant: those are sunk costs. Similarly, the case for selling the Royal Mail is that it would be more valuable as a private business than in government hands. What of the student loan book? Would a buyer be able to offer more to the government for this stream of income than it is worth in public hands? No, because no private party has a lower borrowing cost than the government, since the government is the most creditworthy entity in the country. So the value of the student loan book to the government, given its low discount rate, is higher than to any potential private buyer. That might not be the case if the Treasury suffered from a genuine – as opposed to a purely artificial – borrowing constraint. In that case, the marginal cost of borrowing might be much higher than the average cost. That could justify selling existing assets, to replace them with more valuable assets. But the government suffers from no such borrowing constraint. So why do it? It is yet another example of a bigger problem: the manic concentration on the government’s overall debts – the totemic public debt ratio – rather than the whole balance sheet. Selling the book flatters the net public debt level in the very short term. Yet who would be impressed with a company that reported only its debts, but not its assets? It is not a sensible way to manage one’s activities. The student loan book should be left exactly where it is."

At this time in particular people like Trump causing divisions fear and hatred within communities are doing exactly what terrorists would want.

With his remarks wanting to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, Donald Trump has shown himself to be a dangerous racist behaving in a way likely to incite violence. As such his presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good.