Just a few weeks ago the World watched in horror at the brutal offensive conducted by at the Israeli government against the inhabitants of Gaza. Thousands of civilians were either killed, wounded or traumatised. Essential civilian infrastructure - power, water and sewerage systems - all paid for by international aid programmes, were targeted and destroyed. The reaction of Western governments on that occasion was muted. It took the outrage of Western citizens to shake them from the fence. As a result the military campaign became increasingly counter-productive and Israel had to pull out. Now Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to exact a further price on the Palestinians. He has announced his intention to annex 400 hectares of the West Bank, for the building of illegal settlements. This despite the announcement in the Knesset on the 9th June (three days before Gaza exploded) that the Yesh Atid Party would quit the unity government should Netanyahu make any such annexation attempt. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-08/annexation-plan-sparks-threat-to-topple-israel-government.html On this occasion, to its credit, the UK Government have been far quicker to make clear its opposition to the plan. http://jpupdates.com/2014/09/01/british-foreign-minister-hammond-uk-deplores-israels-decision-annex-west-bank-land/ But what will be our reaction if Netanyahu ignores both us and his own coalition partners and proceeds with the annexation? What prospect then for a two state solution based on mutual respect and security? In these circumstances, we would like the UK Government to take firm action. Action consistent with that applied in respect of Russia's annexation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. ie the introduction of sanctions. If it isn't, the double standards that we have applied to Israel over the past 70 years will continue a. to blight those discriminated against indigenous peoples made refugees in their own land; and b. enhance a tragic narrative that has and will continue to radicalise generations of disaffected Muslim's the world over. Act now and sign this letter petitioning our leaders to stop this annexation.

Cancer just about impacts on everyone. It has blighted and touched upon most peoples lives. The government has as its first right to protect its people. The government are servants to its people.

The Day Centres cost little to run and can offer a safe haven and a safe place to heal, for those who have and who are now suffering with mental health difficulties/differences.

War is a murder of our children and our future. Promote peace and stability.

There are two things happening between Ukraine and Russia right now. First, Russian and Ukrainian leaders are meeting in Belarus to negotiate a peace deal in the Ukrainian conflict that Russia insists it has nothing to do with. Second, Russian military forces are crossing the border into Ukraine in what is clearly a hostile invasion and act of war. That includes Russian artillery, Russian tanks, Russian-trained irregular forces, and even uniformed Russian soldiers who have admitted on camera that they are Russian military ordered to invade by their commanders. But the first piece of that is obfuscating the second. Getting Russia to agree to a peace deal on Ukraine requires lots of careful diplomacy, and that means that no one wants to formally acknowledge Russia's invasion of Ukraine, even though Russia is definitely invading Ukraine right now. That's how you have even the more hawkish figures in the Obama administration making statements like this: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/27/6069415/lets-be-clear-about-this-russia-is-invading-ukraine-right-now

East Coast Trains is contributing money back to the UK economy and is the best example of why a state owned public service is best kept public. With a possible change of Government so soon after the selling of this franchise, it's sale should be delayed to allow a (possible) Labour Government keep the company state owned

Using these solar conductors will be a benefit to raising the proportion of renewable eletricity sales under the Utilities Act of 2000 and it is only a matter of time until these windows get created commercially - no doubt at a great price. The future revenue created by these solar-windows will far exceed it's expenditure, not to mention the benefit of jobs created in the short-term. With the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff in 2010 people will be able to buy and install these themselves and the UK government will lose out on selling vast amounts of energy back to the grids. As a citizen I would love to harness the energy myself and live off-grid but this petition is not for me, it is for the future of the UK's energy sector and the general land itself. With certain moves in place to try and start mass shale gas "fracking" I am genuinely afraid of the effects this will have to our water supplies, energy prices and the general geography of our country. As the environment minister you are obliged to ease the minds of those of us who are closely watching how you are ensuring the UK are at the forefront of sustainable development and that you actually care about climate change.

At the moment the law favours developers, who can cast doubt on boundaries and have the resources to pursue such claims. Planners rely on a prescriptive set of measurements and rules which limit their ability to make ethical judgements. Councillors equally err in favour of planners to avoid expensive litigation. Neighbours who are unable to fund a challenge are easily disregarded. Currently planning applications are being passed despite boundary disputes, causing immense distress to residents in neighbouring properties who can object but are told by planning officers that there is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate ownership of land being developed.

This is an issue that must not be allowed to 'fall out of the news' again. The new head of the enquiry must be someone who has no perceived conflicts of interest and must be able to win the trust of alleged victims who are speaking out. You have promised MPs. that there is "a relentless commitment" to track down paedophiles and online child abusers. The public are not convinced that this is true.

Too many kids are being left un-supported by the education system just because theres no label or diagnosis does not mean kids who need support needs should get left and more importantly left unsupported.

Many children commit suicide as a result of sexual abuse. They are not here to write their petitions are to ask for your help. I ask for your help for them, and for those victims of child sexual abuse who are still suffering and whose brave and truthful stories have been covered up by the schools where they were hurt. Child X was sexually abused at New Beacon School in Kent by Paul Woodward, a music teacher at the school who had previously been suspended as a result of allegations of sex offences and who was subsequently reinstated at the school before abusing child X. Woodward was found guilty of sexual offences against other children in the community and sent to prison. The headmaster, Mr Constantine quickly found another job at Ipswich. Child X was too ill to give evidence in Court against Woodward in 2008, but in 2013 was made an award by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. New Beacon School sought to protect its own reputation by the new head, Mr Piercy making misleading press statements which covered up the abuse at the school, regardless of the effect on child X. He and the school continues to refuse to admit the abuse, to apologise or to correct the misleading press statements. The most vulnerable victims of child sexual abuse are too ill to give evidence at the time, and these are at the greatest risk of health problems and adult suicide. There are many cases of Independent Schools who cover up abuse in this way regardless of the very serious consequences of their behaviour on the victims. The Government is considering introducing mandatory reporting for independent schools. I strongly ask that all cover ups by Independent Schools of sexual abuse of children be included in this legislation, so that misleading press statements of known or proven abuse (including awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) are criminal acts.

This petition is presented for the purpose of creating a better framework of Interest rates and Taxes, as applied in an inflationary environment to High Street Savers. In this document the word 'real' is used to indicate that Inflation has been taken into account. Present Situation In the past 80 years there has been only one instance of an annual RPI deflation. That was 2009. A Saver is rarely rewarded with a positive real gain under the present methods of setting interest rates and income taxation. Each year the Saver pays income tax and loses a capital value related to Inflation. In Good Years, Savers are provided with a real gain, but real Income Tax is at a high rate, usually between 50 and 100%. Sometimes, Savers pay 100% real Income Tax and a real Capital Tax as well. In Bad Years, Savers pay real Capital Tax, together with a real Ex-Inflation Tax (excess of inflation over interest) . The last 12 years have been 'bad' years, except for 2009. Wealth Transfer For about the past 12 years Savers have been losing real Capital Value from their Savings due to inflation. These losses are not 'lost for all time and to all', but they are losses of capital value from Savers. This capital value is transferred to Debtors, as capital gain or other forms of value transfer. Essentially, due to the action of inflation Savers find their capital value reduced, while Debtors find their debts reduced. The conditions for such a Transfer is caused by devaluation of the GB Pound; recognised by; A) Statutory rate Inflation rate specified to Bank of England as 'monthly' & 'medium term' target, B) Actual Inflation experienced in the UK while the Bank of England attempts to hold Inflation to the Target. No Capital Transfer Tax nor Capital Gains tax is paid on such Transfers. No restitution is paid to Savers for these losses The ONS has no collected data by which to estimate the total value of transfers of such monies. As a first estimate of total UK Saver's losses caused by the current system of Tax&Inflation we can use annual devaluation of the UK Savers total Capital. BoE data suggest that UK Savers have about £1200x10^9 in Term Deposits, and about £800x10^9 in Sight Deposits. A total of some £2000x10^9. This capital loses value at the rate of devaluation/inflation. Say an annual loss of value of £20x10^9 for each 1% of Inflation. To prevent this loss it is suggested that Inflation should be reduced to Zero, or, that Savers should be reimbursed for losses caused by Inflation. It should be noted that currently most Saver accounts are held by Bank, Building Society, and other organisations, who as a matter of course make the calculations for, Interest paid, and Tax deducted. It appears more logical, therefore, to continue with this system, but make sufficient changes to provide a Saver with a real positive reward, after Tax. Proposal I Rarely is the interest paid to Savers, positive after tax and inflation. We suggest that legislation be enacted to provide a legal minimum savings interest rate. Higher rates will be set by 'market forces' It is proposed that there be a legal minimum rate of 1% above RPI Inflation. Proposal II The volume of Tax raised on Savings Interest is currently excessive because no account is taken of Inflation. A fair income tax on Savings Interest might be based on real income. It is proposed that an Index-link to both Savings' Capital Value & Interest, is used for Income Tax purposes. Proposal III An Income tax based on real income would yield a much smaller volume of tax. Were this tax reduced to zero rate, there would be no cost of collection. It is proposed that Savings Interest is declared tax-free. Proposal IV Were no change to be made to the Taxation System as applied to Saving Interest, it would be appropriate to modify the proposed Legal minimum interest rate for Savings, to allow for this taxation disadvantage. It is proposed that in such conditions the Legal Minimum rate of Savings Interest shall be 125% of the rate proposed above. This will over compensate those who do not pay income tax, and will be an insufficient adjustment of those who pay income tax at the 40 and 45% rates. For the purposes of this Petition we retain a simple flat rate tax concept, set at 20% or 1/5. It is proposed that the minimum rate of Savings Interest to be 5/4 x (RPI +1)%. Proposal V So that the lack of 'fairness' is removed, we have made the proposals above. Such a situation might return. We propose that a Treasury position of 'Savings Champion' shall be created by primary legislation. The specific duty of the Savings Champion will be to keep watch on above changes ( when they have been instituted by legislation) and report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they are not, or appear not to be, adhered to.