To the French Ambassador; Mme Sylvie Bermann, We are writing to you to express a deep concern about the treatment of refugees and migrants on the French-UK border. On the 31st January, nearly a month after the ‘exclusion zone’ was announced in the Calais refugee camp - a church and mosque were demolished by the French authorities. This is contrary to a promise made publicly by the Prefect of Calais that these would be protected. Armed CRS police stood by as the demolition took place. The exclusion zone – until recently home to 2000 people - has become the scene of regular unprovoked tear gas attacks from the police, who also continue to shoot refugees with rubber bullets and water canons, randomly beat people walking in the streets, and are complicit with aggression from far-right activists. While we recognise that the UK government must bear equal responsibility for the existence of these camps, we, as residents of the UK, with or without papers, call on you, the French Ambassador, to put pressure on the French government to cease sanctioning such pitiless and violent behaviour, which demonstrates complete disregard for human dignity. The refugees come here for safety and are greeted by razor wire and armed police. Two nations who pride themselves on their democracy, fairness and justice should not be committing this appalling violence against people who are fleeing war, terrorism, poverty, drought and persecution. Both governments must now recognise that this is a global and long-term issue and act accordingly, not with hostility and border controls, but with compassion. This situation is not going away: the long-term issues of the current ‘refugee crisis’ will continue to escalate due, not only to intensifying conflicts, but also climate change. Thus it is essential that we find a kinder, more rational and human response to the situation. We are asking you, as the French Ambassador, to take a stand against the violent response of both the French and British authorities, and represent to them the shame we feel at both our nations’ behaviour. We are here in solidarity with the refugees and migrants trapped on the border with the UK, those already here and those to come, whose voices and stories are not being heard and whose basic humanity is being ignored.

As a licence fee payer I am appalled that the BBC is trying to cut essential viewing such as the BBC Paper Review at 11.30pm. As not all front pages are in when the 10.30 pm slot goes out , there is a need for 11.30 pm review and also as competition to sky news. The BBC is a national institution and is paid for by you and me, the license fee payers. Thus we should stand up for what we want the news channel to be broadcasting.

The reason for the petition is the "well being of public safety" Wolverhampton Private Hire Drivers Group has joined a growing band of campaigners who have raised safety concerns over 'falling standards' in the trade since the city council changed the way drivers need to qualify for a taxi badge. They now have only to pass a one-day course.

Much of this borough is semi rural. We do not want to see our green spaces industrialised with up to 8 wells per square mile. Our roads are congested enough without the massive increase in heavy traffic these developments would cause. Fracking can potentially lead to serious or widespread pollution of our water supplies. And there is the risk of air pollution too. High-profile doctors, pharmacists and public health academics want fracking banned! We do not want these risks near our homes and schools! It could reduce the value of our homes! We do not want to risk negative equity and losing the value of our hard work! We already risk dangerous climate change by the burning of just a fraction of the fossil fuels that we have found! Just what is the point of destroying our environment just to look for more? If we stick to the goals to limit global warming to 2degrees, we will never be able to burn shale gas!

This is applying the same principles to business as the government is proposing for trade unions.

The Credit industry in the UK already has plenty of tools to use when pursuing debtors who will not pay their debts, to the point of getting a County Court Judgement and then engaging Bailiffs to go after the debtor or repossessing property. In addition, they are under a duty to work with debtors who find themselves unable for whatever reason to pay their debts as originally agreed and to find more suitable ways of repaying the debt. The fact that a company will sell an old debt for a fraction of its face value means that the debt has already been written off and all options for collecting the debt have failed. Almost without exception, these companies do not exercise any form of due diligence to find out whether the alleged debt is still valid. In many cases, it isn't. Instead, they write threatening and intimidating letters to potentially vulnerable people about old debts which may well have been forgotten about. This practice is unfair given the vast array of tools already available to the credit industry. It is not in the interests of the Credit Industry because the debts sold have already been written off. The practice is born of sheer greed and benefits nobody except the companies engaged in it. For that reason, it needs to be banned.

More and more UK residents not only on benefits but in work reply on food banks to feed there family.

Because this is forcing low income families to fight to keep their homes as based on household rents this could mean two earners of 15'000 each that equal to the threshhold put in place and therefore could see them homeless or being desperately forced out of london away from their income and their childrens schools. Imagine being a low or even middle income family on social housing living within an area like hoxton or islington and being forced to pay local rents that could mean one whole salary spent on just rent before any other bills such as council tax / elec/ gas etc!!!!

This Bill represents a wide-ranging attack on workers' rights. It's designed to restrict the right to strike and act collectively in the workplace

We, the undersigned, care deeply about the arts, and equally the natural environment and the rights of humans around the world. We believe arts and cultural institutions should break their ties with oil companies such as BP, a company which has caused repeated environmental catastrophes, including the Deepwater Horizon spill, and been implicated in numerous human rights violations. Furthermore, BP is turning a profit on the continued extraction of dirty fossil fuels, pushing us towards runaway climate change, whilst lobbying against environmental laws and clean energy alternatives [1, 2]. By accepting sponsorship from BP, cultural institutions give the oil giant much-needed positive publicity, and help it to obscure the destructive reality of its activities with a veneer of respectability. At the same time, oil sponsorship taints the reputation of the institutions that accept it. We recognise the vital importance of arts funding, particularly after public funding cuts. However BP sponsorship provides less than 1% of the annual income of the British Museum, Tate, and Royal Opera House, and just 3% of the income of the National Portrait Gallery [3], yet BP are allowed to place their name and logo alongside the names of these institutions, on their website and in exhibitions (despite many artists and arts workers having strong views against such branding) [4, 5]. BP needs these institutions far more than they need BP. This is the 26th year that BP has sponsored the Portrait Awards, through an agreement with the National Portait Gallery (NPG) in London. Fortunately this agreement is due to end this year. The NPG could choose not to renew the agreement, and to find a more appropriate sponsor for the Portrait Awards. However, negotiations about renewal are already underway. The NPG will not drop BP as a sponsor without strong pressure from the public and the arts sector. We need to act now. Over its 26 years of sponsorship, BP has repeatedly caused great harms to the environment and people; it has been responsible for multiple deadly explosions and oil spillages, including that of Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people, decimated ecosystems and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico, and resulted in the largest corporate fine in history [6]. It has traded with oppressive regimes from Azerbaijan to Libya, and has even been implicated in torture in Colombia [7]. It has recently expanded into tar sands, an extreme form of energy production which contaminates water and tramples on indigenous rights [8]. Worldwide, fossil fuel companies have currently laid claim to five times the volume of oil, gas and coal that humanity can burn without causing dangerous and destructive levels of global warming [9] - despite this, BP has stated that it will continue to explore and exploit new reserves of oil and gas into the future. In 1989, the National Portrait Gallery ended its eight-year Portrait Award sponsorship agreement with tobacco company John Player [10]. It is time for this national cultural institution to show such moral leadership and forward-thinking once again, by cutting ties with BP. As a partner of the National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery can influence this decision. We call on this respected national cultural institution to put pressure on the NPG to find a more appropriate sponsor, and to refuse to host the BP Portrait Awards until a new sponsor has been found. For more information, please see: http://bp-or-not-bp.org/ http://bp-or-not-bp.org/scotland http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ References 1. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/bp-tops-the-list-of-firms-obstructing-climate-action-in-europe 3. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/artoilinfographic/ 4. http://fossilfundsfree.org/who/ 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/24/no-oil-painting-bp-sponsorship-npg-portrait-award 6. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/bp-will-pay-largest-environmental-fine-in-us-history-for-gulf-oil-spill 7. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/gilberto-torres-survived-colombias-death-squads-now-he-wants-justice 8. http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth 9. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 10. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ 11. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/

We are being asked to vote on something which will possibly change the future of Britain and haven't been given the facts from which to make a choice.

In May the government will block charities, who receive a government grant, from being able to lobby and campaign against government policies. A clause inserted into new and renewed grant agreements  will state that Charities can't take part in "activity intended to influence - or attempt to influence - Parliament, government or political parties". Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said the new rules were "draconian". "This is tantamount to making charities take a vow of silence and goes against the spirit of open policy-making that this Government has hitherto championed." Meanwhile big business, who receive government grants can carry on spending over £2.5bn a year on lobbying Westminster.