Scots have exercised their devolved powers to help save the planet. To restrict the energy and resources required to make millions of plastic bags every year and to help us all stop polluting the planet by dumping plastic in landfill sites, the Scottish Government has introduced a compulsory charge of 5p per bag. This is not a tax, The money goes to the shops and supermarkets who sell you the bag and the VAT goes into the Westminster treasury. It is estimated that £9million per year could flow south to the UK treasury from this tax alone. There is no compulsory bag compulsory charge in England. Scots need to stop these subsidy junkies in England bleeding this country dry of our wealth, talent and resources. To redress this subsidy imbalance I propose that all Scots working or living in England who travel north across the border should repatriate as many free English plastic bags home to Scotland as they can each trip so we can re-use and recycle them as required.

"The Rough" is an adjacent greenfield site which has been the target of developers for decades. The plan includes re-building Ascot Heath School between the "The Rough" and Ascot Stud Farm, leaving the eastern half of this greenfield site susceptible to creeping status change. It is important because this is green belt designated as a Special Protected Area and because there are other East Berkshire sites with infrastructure (sewers, arterial roads, hospitals) much more suited to new housing developments.

He is claiming that all benefit claimants can live off £7 a day. I think if he says it's possible why not do it himself. So like the rest of us we would get £7 to spend a day. All to go on nothing really as money would have to be saved up to spent on bills. With £7 a day means no gas, no electricity, no heating, no lights on a switch no hot food and just live in idleness, want, hunger, cold and squalor.

The Bill would rewrite the rules that force market tendering of services and that are seeing millions of pounds wasted on competition lawyers that should instead be spent on patients.

People in the affected areas are suffering from increased crime and fear of crime, such as damage to cars and property. Taxis, the fire brigade and police can't see house numbers in the dark, delaying responses, which could threaten people's safety - the police apparently oppose KCC's action. People are worried if they have to go out in the dark streets because they could trip on uneven pavements and tree roots. This affects many people who return from work late at night or have to leave very early to get to work. I live in Thanet, and there have been many complaints about KCC's policy of turning off lights on social media such as Streetlife, and this affects most people except those who live on main roads.

During the autumn of 2014 National Grid ran a consultation called "North West Coast Connections" asking members of the public how it should get power from the proposed new Moorside power station in west Cumbria into the high voltage transmission grid. On 17 June 2015 – despite widespread opposition - National Grid announced the decision to take forward its preferred option. This would see huge new pylons and overhead lines in the Lake District National Park and other sensitive protected areas, causing massive damage to the beautiful landscape and wildlife. At 50m tall, the new pylons would be twice the height of existing pylons and more than twice as wide. They would break the skyline from many viewpoints and create a permanent eyesore. National Grid provided an alternative offshore option for the public to comment on. The offshore route would take the powerline underground and then out to sea, where cables laid in the sea bed would link it into the national grid near Blackpool. National Grid has always accepted that this route is feasible, but it is not the route it wanted to take . In a previous public consultation in 2012, there was overwhelming support for the offshore route because it had the least impact on the Lake District. Although the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation also supported the offshore option, National Grid has disregarded the wishes of the public. A number of stakeholder organisations that supported the onshore option did so with the proviso that National Grid takes satisfactory measures – such as routing cables underground - to mitigate the effects of pylons in sensitive areas. It now appears likely that adequate mitigation will NOT be offered. National Parks were created in order to protect beautiful areas for the people of Britain; we do not want to see 27 miles of 50m tall pylons (connected by multiple conductor wires) in and next to the Lake District National Park. We want your help to persuade National Grid that the offshore option IS the best route because it would both secure our future electricity supplies AND protect the Lake District’s wonderful landscapes. As well as signing the petition, please also consider joining Power Without Pylons (membership free) and Friends of the Lake District. You could also write to newspapers, newsletters and magazines; and if you live in an area likely to be affected, contact your MP and raise concerns with your parish council. As well as this petition, we are currently running a write-in campaign to encourage members of the public to contact National Grid, the MP and Liz Truss the Environment Secretary directly to express their concern and objections to taking the pylons onshore and not considering undergrounding in spite of the damage that pylons would do to the Lake District's landscape. You can access the campaign here: www.saynotopylonsinthelakedistrict.org.uk For more information: www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/News/response-to-national-grids www.powerwithoutpylons.org.uk www.northwestcoastconnections.com Note: this petition was initiated by Kate Willshaw of Friends of the Lake District ahead of the "North West Coast Connections" consultation, which has now ended. Kate has invited Power Without Pylons to continue to promote it.

We believe this ban is unnecessary and heavy handed. Laws regarding damage to public property already exist (this is the basis of the councils plan to ban skateboarding around the war memorial area) and we believe singling out skateboarders for special treatment is an extremely negative way to approach a diverse group of mostly respectful, active and creative individuals. We also believe that skateboarding is an activity that should be encouraged by the city council as a positive, healthy, sociable and green way for people, from a wide range of social backgrounds and age groups, to enjoy themselves and interact with the world around them. We are in agreement that the war memorial should NOT be used by skateboarders (or BMX, Inline, scooter etc) and should be left as a place of respect and contemplation for those it represents (the ban covers a much larger area than the memorial gardens and monument), however we believe that a simple sign or even CCTV camera would suffice to discourage anyone who tries to misuse this area. We believe the ban would also be difficult to enforce, waste police time and criminalise youths who are just trying to enjoy themselves.

My mother was recently taken into Kent and Canterbury Hospital, having suffered chest pains after receiving a flu jab. She had been advised to dial 999, should this be the case. I arrived at the hospital with my father at around 9.30pm, on the evening in question - my mother had been there, since around 8.00pm. We were told that she would need to be seen by a senior doctor, before a decision could be made, as to whether to discharge her, or keep her in over night. So we waited... And waited... And continued to wait, until 6.30am the following morning, before she was finally seen, by 'the senior doctor'. I use single quotes, as we were informed, during the night, that there was just ONE senior doctor to oversee the entire hospital. The reason it took so long for him to reach my mother, was due to an emergency case on one of the wards, along with the number of other people, needing to be seen first. I am sure you will agree, that this is completely unacceptable and that more frontline staff are needed, in order to avoid situations, such as this. As it happened, my mother wasn't in any danger, but supposing she had have been?

Without this clarity our rights to opinions and free speech will be at the behest of a regulator who may classify some as illegal financial promotions. Our regulator (the FCA) and their equivalent in the USA (the SEC) are currently the only regulators in the western world who are seeking to limit the free speech and flow of opinions of citizens on social media. So this matters to us all. Opinions & Free Speech Regulated = Censorship What it proposes is far from clear. The result of this lack of clarity is it places rights to monitor and regulate the expression of opinions and free speech, by both innovators and innocent members of the public, initially in this small but very significant area, into the hands of unelected and unaccountable regulators. Historical precedents are clear where this can, and usually does, lead. Clarity This unclarity is simply not necessary. One of the UK's leading legal minds, Chris Moss,of JMW solicitors, who continues to guide The Bank of Dave, has looked with us at the legislation, which was created before social media existed, and identified the small but crucial and uncontroversial changes needed to bring exactly this clarity. He has identified that these are changes that can be made by the Chancellor and his Treasury ministers. In under a week the UK's Financial Regulator close their consultation as they tighten their grip on Social Media and what messages from the trade and public will be outlawed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE ACT NOW Please sign the petition and also respond now to the FCA to ensure ordinary citizens are not placed in legal jeopardy for using social media to express an opinion, or talk about a crowdfund. This only need takes a few moments. The full details are at http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/guidance-consultations/gc14-06 and it closes 6th Nov 2014. If you care about free speech or the freedom of social media please read the summary and express your opinion, below. One way or another it's important you express your opinion about free speech. We need clarity and unless there's a change of direction that won't happen. PLEASE NOTE Sample/Template Text is provided below and you can skip to it below and send it if you're familiar with this issue and short of time. As requested by the FCA please email : [email protected] or use the response form at http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/guidance-consultations/gc14-06 ------ Sample Template Response (for you to adapt and send) ----- I/we do not believe that the FCA should have the right to monitor and classify ordinary citizens use of social media as illegal. Paid financial promotions (adverts) are different from citizens use of such media, and measures to ensure they are policed to be 'clear, fair and not misleading' must not remove the rights of citizens to free speech and free expression, or place citizens in jeopardy. This is paramount and we call on the FCA to ensure that this clear distinction is maintained in the handling of social media, and to make the necessary changes to these proposals to ensure that they are, and citizens and entrepreneurs use of social media for crowdfunding or other purposes is not restricted. To also, if necessary, directly raise these matters with government to ensure such clarity. We need clarity. Please play your part by taking just a few moments to respond to the FCAs consultation and express your opinion.

As someone who has already suffered by government cuts to sickness benefit, I know this cut will make life even more difficult for people living with disabilities. My wife and I both live with disabilities and can't work. But both of our sickness benefits have been stopped and we have to survive off of our savings. I have worked all my life, they do not care. £30 a week is a huge amount to cut, and another example of the government treating disabled people as second class citizens.

Voters are apathetic, as they perceive the establishment parties as not giving them enough choice. We need plurality in politics, not just the Establishment parties plus UKIP.

The proposed savings of £2.85 million from the Library Services in Barnet threatens the existence of one of the last remaining community amenities we have left. Three options have been put forward by the Council to make these savings; all three will see a reduction in the quality and quantity of service provision. Option one will see the size of library cut in all but four libraries. This idea fails to understand that libraries are used for their space as well as their books; less places for pupils and students to study and read results in a reduction of the quality of service. Option two will see the closure of Burnt Oak, Childs Hill, Mill Hill, East Finchley, Osidge and South Friern Libraries and a significant reduction of staffing levels at the remaining libraries. This option does not consider how the remaining libraries will cope with increased footfall owning to the closure of the other libraries, particularly around peak library times. Option three is a mix of the two, with some libraries being handed over to community groups and reduced staffing elsewhere. Libraries are the embodiment of social provision and community spirit. They are more than just books; they offer children's activities during term and holidays which are used by parents and nurseries. They offer access to the internet to those that don't have access. They provide space for people to read and study in peace that is not always possible in their homes. They are places to host community events, training and education. I use the library for my daughter; renting books but mainly for their toddler activities. My nursery also go there regularly. Please sign this petition if you believe in the universal provision of literature, education and community services in Barnet. Say no to the erosion of this great social asset.