From Monday 1 August this year, students starting university courses in England will no longer be able to apply for grants towards living costs. Grants for students from low-income homes will now be replaced by loans. Previously, students from families with annual incomes of £25,000 or less received a full grant of £3,387 a year. The National Union of Students have said the move was "disgraceful" and meant poorer students would be saddled with a lifetime of debt. The switch from grants to maintenance loans was announced in July 2015 by the then Chancellor, George Osborne, in his Budget. Mr Osborne said at the time that there was a "basic unfairness in asking taxpayers to fund grants for people who are likely to earn a lot more than them". But is it fair that the very MPs who belong to a generation whose further education was largely funded by the tax payer are now denying the same opportunities to learn to the poorest in our society? Isn't it true that we as a society benefit when those people whose studies we've helped to fund go on to bring us innovations as scientists, better health care as doctors, consultants and surgeons, or improvements to industry and infrastructure as engineers for example? To say that we can't afford this investment is ridiculous. If we can afford to invest in a weapon system we've said we'll never realistically use then surely we can afford to invest in our future generations? So please sign to urge the government to think again and return maintenance grants to those who simply can't afford to study without them.

The UK must be seen to be totally opposed to the prosecutions and media censorship being employed by those currently in power.

It is important to regain the trust of the electorate that these honours are awarded only to the deserving few rather than to donors and friends

In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.

Children are living in poverty!

Over 9,000 early deaths are caused by air pollution in London every year. There are areas in London that exceeded annual pollution limits just eight days into 2016. These pollution hotspots are on our high streets, by our children’s schools and where we work. We’re finding out more and more about how damaging air pollution is - not to just people with asthma, like myself, or other respiratory or even heart conditions, but to children whose lungs are smaller, whose growth is stunted, because of the dirty air they breathe. That’s why, despite living in Zone 3, I was shocked to discover that both of my children’s schools are in air pollution hotspots, where legal limits are regularly broken. Sadly, this is not unusual, as many primary schools are on roads with heavy traffic and this is the biggest source of air pollution in our city. Even more shockingly, under current plans by the UK Government, London won’t meet legal limits of air pollution until at least 2025 – 15 years after the original deadline. At the moment the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will mean only the cleanest vehicles can enter central London from 2020. This is still, however, not enough to clean up all of London’s air even by 2025. That’s why Sadiq is looking at whether the ULEZ should be expanded to the North and South circulars. Yet, there are pollution hotspots outside of this area. So, the ULEZ needs to be expanded to cover the whole of Greater London to protect all Londoners. The UK Government has been taken to court for failing to protect us from air pollution and the previous Mayor did very little to clean up our air. While I welcome the considerable efforts that the new Mayor has taken, I encourage him to be bolder, braver and faster with action to address this crisis.

Please accept the advice from the soil association and other word leading scientists that glyphosate is harmful to health when ingested in any quantities and the use of it as a pre harvest dessicant has been shown to cause high levels of glyphosate in the grain and humans who consume wheat soya barley based products show significant levels of glyphosate in their urine. It is a WHO suspected carcinogen a hormone disruptor damages the gut biome and may contribute to auto immune disease. The EU has refused a full license and given only a short temporary approval to glyphosate and deprecates it's use as a dessicant. My wife and I both have developed auto immune diseases and we both were exposed to glyphosate spray mist directly and in our food through no choice of our own as it is almost impossible to buy glyphosate free produce. Products that may contain glyphosate from pre harvest desiccation include flour, bread, sauces ,pizza, pastry, beer, soy sauce, biscuits, any meals using wheat as a thickener (most do) etc ... https://www.farminguk.com/news/Soil-Association-writes-to-major-bread-companies-asking-them-to-avoid-glyphosate_42519.html

Council Tax is calculated using out of date property values (which were outdated when Council Tax was introduced) and is often set at a rate that is unaffordable for people on low incomes. This means that people are forced to make a choice between eating, heating, paying their rent and paying their Council Tax. Local authorities will seek a Liability Order if a person finds it difficult to pay their Council Tax and this adds to their debt burden. Liability Orders are impossible for a low waged resident to defend and local authorities know this. If one applies for Council Tax Support, they are required to pay their Council Tax until they are assessed. This means that some people face court action and even financial ruin. Currently, a person on a low wage living next door to someone with a higher income pays the same amount in Council Tax. This is unfair on the people that can least afford it.

Promoting the brand of terrorism only goes to incentivise more allegiance from possible extremists. Without the major media coverage the main incentive of notoriety and the spread of fear is withdrawn. Stop promoting the brand of terrorism on TV news stations and news papers. A huge drive for extremist terrorists to do what they do is the publicity afforded them, and the feeling of being part of a cause.

Having endured nine months of road closure due to land slip it now transpires that the 37 service during this time picked up more traffic flow on its redirected route (Newton St Loe & Saltford) who frankly have services to both cities of Bath and Bristol. A decision has been made by the company that the service 'doesn't cut the mustard' and is not commercially viable. BNES & SGC need to take URGENT action at Council ward level to step in and provide a solution for rural home owners both young and elderly.

The proposed plant sits within a cluster of fields just across the road from both an Area of outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) regions. There are two Bronze age barrows that are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and a third non-scheduled Iron Age round that are in close proximity. Concerns exist on both the visual impact on the beautiful countryside of National archaeological importance and the environmental impact this brings. http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MCO8831&resourceID=1020. We believe that the affect on this Archaeological site* will be profound. As such we think that the decision should lie in the Secretary of Sates hands. *Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 Section 61(9) Lets not set a detrimental precedence that allows the subsidies for burning Fossil Fuels and polluting an area heavily devoted to Green energy sources. Join us in opposing this inappropriate development.

The State of North Carolina recently enacted House Bill 2 known as HB2. The bill prevents local governments in North Carolina from passing anti-discrimination laws, undoing those already in place. It also permits business owners to discriminate against LGBT+ people on grounds of religious belief, and demands that individuals use the public bathroom corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate, endangering transgender people. This is clearly a huge injustice to the LGBT+ community of the State, but also to those visiting who are now at risk. In 2016 we expect to see nothing but progress when we see LGBT+ rights in the news. Sadly this is not always the case, as we were reminded earlier this year by the passing of this bill in the State of North Carolina. I was dismayed therefore to see that our new Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox MP, has announced plans to open a UK trade office in the state capital Raleigh. Liam Fox must not press ahead with plans to open this office not just as an act of solidarity, but to pressure the authorities of North Carolina to undo these awful laws and keep British people out of harm's way. In response to the enactment of HB2 a boycott of the state has ensued, with musicians pulling out of gigs and businesses withdrawing investment. If the Department for International Trade opens a new UK trade office in Raleigh then this boycott will be undermined. Furthermore the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued a warning to LGBT+ travelers to the State of North Carolina. Brits working at the new office may be put at risk because of HB2. This is unacceptable.