The EU seems to be up for it, but for some unknown reason George Osborne is against it! WTF is going on here?! Every year our budget as a nation of taxpayers is denied billions of pounds of legitimate revenue because the Tory Government is too spineless to tackle this issue. Or are they simply in cahoots?! If they are, this is corruption at the highest level... This is a well documented issue. Many big multinational companies find ways to evade corporate taxation by allegedly basing their operation in tax havens such as Luxembourg. This is the oldest dodge in the book and it has run out of credibility. If these companies are doing huge amounts of business with UK taxpayers, they should pay their dues to HMRC. This should be an open and shut case, but it's not, mainly because they are not being brought to book by the government.

We all now how important Human Rights are in the 21st century. We fight for the equal employment rights for women, we fight for the equality in regards to different races and cultures, however we sometimes forget to fight for ourselves. Yes, I am aiming this at you: young generation living in the United Kingdom. Car insurance companies in the UK are claiming that young drivers are a much higher risk to other road users, thus they deserve to pay premiums, which 90% of us can not pay. Did they test your driving skills? Do they know how well aware and careful you are when driving on the road? No! I believe this means that we - younger generation are being discriminated against based on our age, despite the fact that the majority of young drivers are much more careful on the road than perhaps the older generation. I, my self have been driving in this country for 5 years now - I am 23 years old, which means that I have 5 years of No Claim Bonus's. However, I still somehow end up paying over 3.000 pounds per year for my car insurance. And no - I do not drive a BMW or a Mercedes; it is a Toyota. The Government, despite knowing about the situation does not seem to be doing much about it, so I believe it is time for us to stand up and fight for our rights - just like the others do. We just simply want to drive! Just like the others. It is our right, given by the Government to be able to own and function a vehicle, and the only forces that stop us from doing so are the insurance companies.

Whilst the original scheme was for one of the most beautiful structures ever proposed – and had already affectionately earned the nickname ‘the helter-skelter’ – the new tower is incredibly mundane at best. Not only is the new design entirely uninspiring but it is completely out of scale with its surroundings. Over the last decade a collection of iconic towers each in proportion to the other has arisen in the city. The new tower’s boxy form is not only boring but the way it hulks over its surroundings completely detracts from them. Now the developers maintain that the redesign was necessary as the curved panels which formed the beautiful summit of the original design were too expensive. Given the fact that rental rates in the city are soaring and the fact that there are significant costs associated with redesigning the scheme, demolishing the current works and delaying completion by several years, it would hardly seem worth it even if the focus is solely on the bottom line. However, whatever the scale of the impact on the bottom line, its absolute minimization cannot be the sole focus regardless of any aesthetic costs when it comes to a structure of this size that will completely dominate views across London for well over a century. Obviously I am against the current design and will sound like an anti-development campaigner. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a skyscraper enthusiast as I believe high density design is environmentally friendly and can create an exciting skyline. I just fear that the scheme will turn public opinion in the city against the development of further high-rises. While I argue that bad designs should not be approved, I believe the government should use all resources available to actively encourage good developments. When presented with a scheme of such high quality design as the original Pinnacle proposal, the government should do everything within its power to ensure that it comes to fruition. If, as the developers claim, the original design was too expensive, the government in its capacity to both encourage business and beautification of the cityscape, should have found ways in which to increase the financial return on the structure. For instance, permission could have been given to extend the tower by another forty meters or so. Not only would this have provided another ten stories of rentable space, but it would have, at 328 meters, secured the title of tallest building in the European Union and maintained it in 2020 when the Hermitage Plaza towers open in Paris. I know that some will say that chasing records is a wasteful egotistical exercise, but I am sure the majority of Londoner’s would rather host the tallest structure on the continent than play second-best to Paris. I do believe there is an inherent benefit in pursuing beautiful, record breaking projects. If an attitude of always settling for the mundane – such as this new proposal – is allowed to propagate, it eventually feeds through into the psyche of the surroundings. Meanwhile, an environment where the boundaries are forever being pushed has an invigorating atmosphere that stimulates achievement and aspiration throughout the population. I do not believe that when Britain produced the fastest locomotives at the end of the 19th century, when America launched its moon missions and the Classical world constructed its glorious monuments that each of these was merely a product of its countries technological leadership at the time. Rather, I believe pushing to develop world beating structures is inspiring to the population and drives further progress back into society. I therefore think government must encourage good design, not only by denying permission to ugly buildings but by doing everything possible to encourage the development of great ones. Now I know that one or two people may complain that slightly extending the height of a tower would make it overbearing. But I do not think it would be more than two as I do not think there are many people who would be perfectly content for a building of 288 meters to be constructed by their property but not one of 328 – hardly anyone would be able to tell any difference at all. In fact the vastly more noticeable impact of increasing the height of a skyscraper is that the extra capacity it would yield would allow for the demolition of an entire crumbling tower block somewhere else and its replacement with a park. I am aware that the very earliest proposal for the Pinnacle was for a tower of 307 meters and this was vetoed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I really do not think that we should be allowing poor airport planning to spill over into poor city planning – especially in the heart of the United Kingdom’s economy. Rather than stunting the development of this city, the CAA should be looking to address the utter inadequacies of its infrastructure with a new hub airport that would eliminate flights over central London.

As a skilled professional or student, minimum wage is completely out of line with market level and does not reflect the time required to learn the trade and the expensive equipment photographers must buy, maintain and replace regularly. Zero hours contracts are also exploitative and indicate that ad hoc work will be given. In this case the ethical choice would be to form a partnership with a local photographer/ several local photographers for these events or offer a competitive rate of pay as this would lead to the university paying a fair price for the service received .

In the longer run it will be cheaper, allow for more open democracy, less pomp and ceremony and rebalance to country away from its London-centric attitude

1 in 4 mothers did not get a midwife when they needed one (according to a a survey by the Royal College of Midwives and Bounty) . http://protect.rcm.org.uk/news Pressure on staff leads to low morale and nearly one third of midwives with less than 10 years’ work experience are intending to leave the profession within a year. Over half of obstetric units do not employ enough consultants to ensure appropriate cover at all times. Evidence suggests quality of care is less good at weekends. The rate of babies who are stillborn or who die within seven days of birth compares poorly with the other UK nations and some European countries – and this is just not good enough. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/maternity-services-report/ Do something now. Sign the petition before conditions get to the point where many experienced midwives are no longer there to train the students and to give appropriate care. Sign before we end up with more than 1 in 4 mothers getting little to no support at one of the most important times in their lives.

This decision was taken at a time when Wrexham is facing severe cuts and public services are under threat. We feel that the local communities in Wrexham should be put first and these funds should be spent on local communities and not councillors allowances.

Sea Lice numbers in the west coast of Scotland have exploded in recent years as a result of the increasing number of fish farms and their inability to effectively control sea lice numbers. This is not just a seasonal spike, the sea lice numbers have consistently been above the threshold set by the Scottish Government at many locations over the last 8 months, it is now time for the Government to enforce necessary 'cull orders' under section 6 of the Aquaculture Act 2007 Quotes from the Salmon and Trout Association Scotland: "Wild salmon and sea-trout are a key part of Scotland's world-renowned natural heritage, but the latest figures for wild salmon numbers are very poor indeed. We know that wild fish need a huge conservation effort. What we simply cannot afford now is fish-farms like those in Loch Fyne or Loch Torridon pouring millions of mobile young lice into the paths of migrating juvenile salmon and sea-trout. The question for Scottish Government is 'how much more evidence of failure to control lice do you need before you start to use your powers to protect wild fish?'" "Conservation bodies keep being told that salmon-farming is a highly-regulated industry, but regulations only work if they are enforced. Those parts of this industry that fail to control lice must now face robust enforcement action. The statutory powers to control on-farm sea lice numbers to protect juvenile wild fish from lethal infestations exist – they must now be used. Its time for the Minister to tell the inspectors to get tough." The levels are now upto 23 times ABOVE the threshold limit at some locations - action is needed now. Recent evidence shows that one juvenile sea trout was covered in over 500 lice which is unprecedented and almost certainly fatal. further information on sea lice infestations can be found at: www.standupforwildsalmon.org

Listed status would help protect the buildings and green spaces of this world famous and highly significant cultural project, the product of one of the most important socialist design eras of post war Britain and Europe. The estate stands as a pinnacle of positive and hopeful architecture and urbanism across the world, and a reminder that from such catastrophic destruction can be wrought optimism in a system such as the welfare state. The buildings, which offer generously-sized flats that could be refurbished, are of outstanding architectural quality and significant historic interest, and public appreciation and understanding of the value of modernist architecture has grown over the past five years, making the case for listing stronger than ever. The UK's 20th Century Society has submitted a paper setting out why they believe Robin Hood Gardens is a building of special architectural interest, worthy of listing. There is now a real chance to save the building for posterity but only if the Minister hears, first hand, the views of the profession on the architectural merits of these exceptional buildings by Alison and Peter Smithson.

A number of journalists and prominent Conservatives have recently, and gleefully drawn attention to the ease with which it might be possible for malicious elements to influence the leadership elections of political parties (parties to whom they hold no affinity). Upon exploration, I was shocked to discover that the idea was initially conceived (and propagated via Twitter), by an Anglican Priest- the Revd Marcus Walker. The following article provides a summary of the Revd Walker's actions: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11680016/Why-Tories-should-join-Labour-and-back-Jeremy-Corbyn.html , but does not necessarily give indication as to the full ramifications of those actions (indeed- the author seems unaware of those ramifications). The Revd Walker is effectively suggesting that anyone can interfere in the leadership choice of a political party to whom they hold no affinity. It is hard to understand how the Revd Walker could be so stupid as not to recognise the implications of this. Possibly no party will ever be able to hold a democratic leadership election again- this is how serious his actions are. How can a party ensure that malicious elements be kept out of their own process for choosing a leader? There are only two obvious answers to that: a system whereby only MPs are allowed to vote in leadership elections (a solution which would notably impinge upon the democratic process); or- limit the voting to members only and significantly increase membership rates (so that casual saboteurs are not wont to interfere). Surely the horror of this second option is not lost upon you- it would in turn lead to a situation in which, in principle, the wealthiest among us could effectively buy the leadership of all major parties). Regardless of the Revd Walker's political leanings- this behavior, at best indicates deep stupidity, and at worst, indicates a complete lack of moral fibre. Furthermore- beyond the practical ramifications of these tweets- I was also very distressed by the apparent glee with which the Revd Walker seems to be conducting himself. This in particular, I find extremely unbefitting of the church.

The proposed skyscraper at 22 Bishopsgate is on plot earmarked for the tallest building in the City of London. This site should therefore be reserved for a building of architectural merit and be world enviable. Instead in Karen Cook of PLP Architecture, (the senior architect of the scheme) own admission to the Architects Journal "we didn't want to appear extravagant in terms of cost and design" "I wanted to do something dignified and simple, allowing the other more articulated one-off pieces (such as the Cheesegrater and the Gerkin) to remain special." This scheme will destroy the city views to millions of Londoners and affect London's appeal around the world. This particular site will be of special architectural interest to the public and the proposed scheme does not meet their expectation. The prior superior scheme gained planning permission and is a building worthy in London's skyline. The previous proposal can be found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=375557 Please sign if you wish the proposal be rejected at planning or called in for public inquiry.

Its public money and therefore should be the best value and the most ethical