Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? Not all governments are hell bent on fracking - far from it. There are bans or moratoriums on fracking in France, Germany, many American states, and at least twelve other countries worldwide. And there are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Hyndburn we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Hyndburn frack free?

The increases in coaches fees has meant that some skater can no longer afford to have lessons. Some of the skaters that have/will have to give up skating are competing in British Championships and looking to compete for this Country. The winter sports club is a charity that is meant to support all winter sports and it is them that will caused the decline in Ice Skating. Some coaches have had to stop coaching altogether as no longer have enough skater to afford to continue.

The Scottish Government and Scottish Funding Council can act to safeguard the future of UWS in Hamilton. Without this investment UWS has confirmed it may have to consider other options, including relocating away from South Lanarkshire. UWS, its students and local partners deserve clarity and certainty.

The House of Commons is meant to be made up of representatives, representing people in a given area and therefore a local form of voting seems most appropriate, however the job of the lords is to scrutinise bills as agents of the whole country. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the current makeup of the House of Lords is a poor representation of the British public and currently completely undemocratic. For a group representing the populous as a whole then a PR voting system would make the most sense, creating a house of the political median of the UKs populous. I believe this system could help us solve the problem of the current bloated House of Lords, maintain our local democracy and improve our national democracy. Finally there is an opportunity for the smaller parties to have a national voice without losing the local representation.

I pay all my income tax in Britain, but I am now disenfranchised. I have lived in France for seventeen years, but intend to return to Britain eventually. Why do I no longer have a vote? It should surely be possible for those of us who wish to continue voting to register. The argument is that too few ex-pats wanted to vote, but what if we do? I understand that French ex-pats are represented. I pay my taxes; I want to vote.

The appointment of Douglas Hogg to the House of Lords is a disgrace. Let's not forget this is the man who claimed for having his moat cleaned and his piano tuned when the expenses scandal kicked off. This is your chance to do the right thing and get the establishment to realise that enough is enough!

This is important as we believe that Grace Bello is a danger to the elderly and vulnerable as she has proved to be and should NEVER be given her job back.

Council Tax has risen by maximum amount of 1.99% in 2015/16 and there are further planned increases for the next 3 years, why are we paying more for less? Tactical Response Vehicles replacing fully equipped Fire Engines and Mixed Crewing of whole and part-time staff will increase response times and increase the risk to the public. Full-time Fire-fighter posts are already down 10% since 2010 with a further 10% reduction if these cuts are voted through. How do you justify this when you have a massive shortfall of part-time fire-fighters which means regularly some fire engines are NOT available. The geographical layout of North Yorkshire with its 3,340 square miles, population of 1.2 million and large network of main and country roads make it difficult to protect now when North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service average between 8 and 13 fire engines unavailable daily. Further reductions will only add more pressure on a service already over-stretched and short staffed. These changes are supposed to be about the risk and the level of response, yet the severity of an incident in 2004 is no different to one in 2015. Some calls may have reduced due to the amount of Community Fire Safety work carried out daily by fire-fighters, yet premise fires and road traffic collisions have not reduced and the size of our communities and number of businesses have increased. 5 fire deaths this year already in North Yorkshire highlight the dangers still faced by the public and the fact that the risk is still just as great.

Private collection agencies are ruthless and add more debt to those who can least afford it.

Incredibly, people don't know they are allowed in box junctions at a right turn if their way is clear,or how to use mini roundabouts. Everyone remembers Reginald Molehusband and "don't dazzle, dip your headlights". The police don't do it so someone must. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3R7hG_pLaI

The protection of UK citizens visiting the USA.

Fair business practice