Already, over 1000 people have died, working in abysmal conditions and searing temperatures on poverty wages in the richest part of the world. It is predicted that if this rate continues, 4000 will have died constructing the facilities for the 2022 World Cup. Workers, upon finding that the pay and conditions are not as described when they were recruited, have told of their passports being retained by the construction companies, forcing them to stay. FIFA has consistently turned a blind eye to this because of the financial implications. It is time for the FA, for once, to put morals before money and unilaterally withdraw from the 2022 tournament. If a leading association takes the lead, others will follow. Human lives are more important than FIFA's arrogance and greed.

Imagine the constant noise, smell, pollution and increased traffic in our area. The proposed site is very close to New southgate Recreation Ground, Several schools, and Nurseries nearby, Oakleigh Road South is already very busy with traffic and Hundreds more lorries would increase Pollution, Noise, accidents and fires. Our environment will be severely compromised as people will be blighted by the constant noise, traffic congestion dirty smelly air which in time will make residents sick from the pollution, the roads will get damaged from the constant heavy traffic, not to mention the value of our homes going down.

We are all familiar with the constant calls which invade our privacy from Tele-Marketing Companies - more often than not from Offshore Calling Centres, such as those based in India who are outside of the reach of our laws. Despite these calls being frustrating, inconvenient & more often than not, downright fraudulent they are still used by leading U.K. based companies as a loophole to get around the Telephone Preference laws which are intended to prevent this. Although we may not be able to stop the Offshore Call Centres entirely, we can, at least, clamp down on those companies that use them. Give the law some power to clamp down on such companies & remove the ever increasing Western market for these Call Centres.

If we can't go to Daycare we just stay at home alone, watching TV all day, we are isolated, depressed and get no exercise. What is the point of getting dressed in the morning if there is nowhere to go? At daycare we have a hot meal, see smiling faces, we can joke and talk about our problems with staff and friends in a way that we can't talk to our family. This gives us joy. We are worried about the 2/3rds of elderly who have now left.. we want them back. The average pension is £120 a week, three days at daycare now costs almost half of our pension. If we don't come to daycare and become depressed and sedentary we are more likely to use expensive services such as personal care, GP surgeries and hospitals. Daycare is a lifeline, many of us cannot get out on our own. Support us to stay fit, healthy, happy and in our own homes - lower the cost of daycare, it will save the council money in the long run.

If this piece of legislation goes ahead then there will be virtually no way to stop nuclear waste dumps being foisted on communities around the UK without any way to challenge them - the Secretary of State would have overall power to enforce anything considered to be of 'National Significance'. This will remove the rights of local authorities to challenge the decision around where to locate these sites.

Every man deserves a second chance to live happy and to prosper, it is the role of government to provide the conditions that allow man to do just that. Many cases where ccj's etc have occurred is simply because, of failing governments failing to recognize that they themselves are the root cause to much of the bad debt and as a consequence of their bad decision making from all sectors, society as a whole indeed suffers. Access to credit to create wealth must be made for everyone. Not everyone is bad and many suffer as a consequence. Humankind is entitled to a better standard of living. When the government demands a significant proportion of a mans wage, there is very little left for the man to prosper. We need change and we need it now. If the government removes its stealth taxes, then perhaps man can flourish and his family prosper, this will not happen and cannot happen when every door that is knocked on is closed for you unless you have a bank balance of a million pounds. The distribution of wealth is not fairly being played as the wealth is consumed by banks that are unwilling to give credit where credit is due and if the government really want to be in touch with the common man, then it must aid the common man or forever be hated by the common man.

The Mansfield Brewery has a history dating back to 1885, however since the brand was merged with Marstons, it has faced Second Rate treatment in favour of Marstons own beers, such as Pedigree, and Hobgolbin. If this treatment is continued, then it is likely this historic brand may eventually cease to be produced and a vital part of Mansfields heritage will be gone forever. The brewery brand is an important reminiscent of a key part of Mansfields history, and deserves to live on under the Marstons brand, rather than being marginalised in favour of other Masrtons Marques.

I personally feel, rightly or wrongly, that if British Telecom were allowed to buy the 'Everything Everywhere' company, it would be like Tesco's buying Morrison's or Sky buying I.T.V. We need a competitive market place to create employment and drive consumers standards to higher grounds. The reaching long term implications of this potential sale, would have to result in job losses and if the public does not raise it's concerns about potential huge company sales such this and similar situations and attempts like it, we could be guilty of scratching our heads in 5 years time and asking ourselves "Where did all the work go?" In the last 3 years, I have found B.T. and E.E's customers standards to be poor and if they become no longer in direct competition with each other, how will their customer services ever improve? We are still recovering from a double-dip recession and the last thing the business market needs is an eventual streamlining of a big phone network. This must be stopped and it is in all of our interests to stop B.T. buying E.E. I have already contacted my M.P, Andrew Turner, about this matter and hope that others are able to find the time to contact their M.P. too.

The current campaign to get potential electors to ‘engage with’ politics fails to 'engage with' Russell Brand's insights (and with the frustration of those who care but feel impotent). The problem can be qualified very simply: 1. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not register is because they do not see the point in registering. 2. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not see the point in registering is because they do not see the point in voting. 3. The reason why non-voting potential electors do not see the point in voting is because: a. They cannot see any options which have a worthwhile chance of promoting their political preferences. b. There are never any ‘none of the above’ options. How could those who care but feel impotent express their despair, and their frustrated desire for a better process? c. Our lousy current voting processes would anyway ignore most of their votes. How could those who care but feel impotent make their votes count? Ideally, of course, all citizens in a liberal democracy would be able to express their political preferences through ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes. However, if the de-facto democratic processes are not ‘fit for purpose’, and those in power have a venal vested interest in maintaining the consequential democratic deficit, citizens have to seek first to change those ‘not fit for purpose’ democratic processes by whatever means (including high-profile ‘focussed outrage’). Where would South Africa be now if Nelson Mandela had played by the rules of apartheid? Where would India be now if Mahatma Ghandi had played by the rules of the British Empire? Where would women’s rights be now if the suffragettes had played by the rules of their menfolk? Where will the UK be in 50 years’ time if the constitutional reform movement urges us to play by the current not ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes? Those who care but feel impotent despair when they note that nine of the eleven members of the PCRC (Political & Constitutional Reform Committee of the Westminster Parliament) are members of the two dominant ‘covert coalition’ Parties; the very Parties which benefit from the current democratic deficit. They wonder ‘why would turkeys vote for Christmas?’. Unfortunately, the constitutional reform movement currently puts forward two conflicting messages to potential electors: 1. The constitutional reform movement (rightly) informs us that the vast majority of us will/would be wasting our time and dissipating our democratic energy by registering and voting (because the lousy current voting processes will ignore most of our votes). 2. The constitutional reform movement (wrongly) urges us to register and vote (thereby wasting our time, dissipating our democratic energy, and reinforcing the venal self-serving complacency of those who oppose constitutional reform). Citizens are not fools. They will not buy the above muddled pair of conflicting messages for long. Brand was/is right in his analysis and insights. However, he failed to provide a constructive alternative. Apathy is not a constructive alternative. Not-voting is not a constructive alternative. Taking over St Paul's cathedral is not a constructive alternative. Citizens need to see a positive and constructive campaign for constitutional reform. The purpose of this campaign is: 1. To act as a ‘call to arms’ and a ‘civil disobedience challenge’ for the 'focussed outrage' with which to confront those benefiting from the lousy current voting processes (i.e. the current Conservative and Labour Parties), who would otherwise of course simply wring their hands, obfuscate and drag their feet (as they always have done). 2. To convince those in power that resistance to constitutional reform is untenable, and that they had a venal vested interest in ‘embracing’ the campaign for constitutional reform (however reluctantly) before ‘events’ overtook them. Those who wish to explore the wider context for a campaign for constitutional reform in the UK can find more detail in two working papers: 1. The working paper 'A Campaign for Constitutional Reform in the UK' provides a blueprint for such a campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWMFNOV2tZeEwwTms/view?usp=sharing 2. The working paper 'Optimising Democratic Governance' provides an in-depth exposition of the principles underlying that campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWZTFLMmFMaUREUms/view?usp=sharing

Pensioners who have made a life outside the UK's list of "Recognised Countries" are being denied their human rights to receiving their full pensions. The UK doesn't mind sending UK citizens to Thailand or other far flung countries to fight and die for them, but if god forbid any of them choose to return and live there, their pensions are either stopped or frozen without the benefit of cost of living increases. At the very beginning of our working lives, and at 10 year intervals. We should be given a list of countries we can expect NOT to receive our pensions.

National Parks are the intellectual property of the people of the UK. NO fracking company should have the right to interfere, IN ANY WAY, with the integrity of these places From the ground below to the sky above (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos). Many parks are areas of outstanding beauty or are of special scientific interest. They are managed by National Trust, farmers, landowners, etc as well as the people who live and work within their boundaries. We must not allow private companies to benefit from the probable disruption of these habitats.

There is still much discontent over the safety of fracking, the lack of public consultation, the rights of the people of the UK in terms of the law of trespass, possible damage to property, devaluation of homes, the insurance implications that may arise for home owners if fracking goes ahead under their homes. Fracking may produce millions, if not billions, in terms of revenue and profit; if their own projections are correct, they can afford to remove the cost burden of such consultation processes from the people of the UK.