She represents the good people in the Telford and Wrekin area and has knowingly lied about such a serious matter. Namely that she was sent a death threat. This is unacceptable and MPs should not be allowed to be so liberal with the truth. MPs are accountable for their actions and this is morally wrong and a misuse of her position in government.

Being a victim of revenge porn is a devastating experience. It is not fair that victims who take the brave step of pressing charges against their abuser currently risk being named in the media, particularly in coverage of the court case. We want the Government to change the law to ensure victims get the protection they deserve.

It will serve to make our roads safer and will make work easier for the Police. It will potentially help to drive down insurance premium costs.

Anglesey is already blighted with a corridor of Pylons across the Island. The National Grid are proposing to erect another line of Pylons across the Island to deal with the new supply of electric from Wylfa Newydd. It appears that they have already decided upon this option as it is the cheapest and most straight forward solution, they appear to dismiss out of hand the alternative of underground cables despite the objection of local residents to yet more Pylons affecting the visual impact and the concern of possible links to Cancer in the local population, including young children. Anglesey relies a great deal on Tourism, more Pylons blighting the Island can only have a detrimental affect. Please show your support for the use of Underground Cables only!

Pets on Eurostar believe that non drivers are being discriminated against by this ban from Eurostar. If you agree, please sign the petition on our home page. We intend to approach not only the directors of Eurostar but our Ministers for Transport at Whitehall and Brussels.

64% of us don't want student loans to be privatised - the government needs to listen. This plan doesn't make financial sense and needs to be scrapped. Martin Wolf from the Financial Times explains ‘Why the UK should not sell its student loan book’: “The UK Treasury is, it is reported, considering the sale of parts of its student loan book. This provokes a big question: when should the UK government sell such an asset – given that it is both immortal and solvent? The best answer has two parts. First, it must be believed that the asset would be better managed by the private sector. And, second, it must be believed that this superior private management can only be introduced by selling the assets – rather than introducing some type of private management contract. Thus, if the government decided to privatise the Royal Bank of Scotland, it should be because the value of the business would be higher under private ownership than it would be under public ownership. What the government paid for RBS shares is irrelevant: those are sunk costs. Similarly, the case for selling the Royal Mail is that it would be more valuable as a private business than in government hands. What of the student loan book? Would a buyer be able to offer more to the government for this stream of income than it is worth in public hands? No, because no private party has a lower borrowing cost than the government, since the government is the most creditworthy entity in the country. So the value of the student loan book to the government, given its low discount rate, is higher than to any potential private buyer. That might not be the case if the Treasury suffered from a genuine – as opposed to a purely artificial – borrowing constraint. In that case, the marginal cost of borrowing might be much higher than the average cost. That could justify selling existing assets, to replace them with more valuable assets. But the government suffers from no such borrowing constraint. So why do it? It is yet another example of a bigger problem: the manic concentration on the government’s overall debts – the totemic public debt ratio – rather than the whole balance sheet. Selling the book flatters the net public debt level in the very short term. Yet who would be impressed with a company that reported only its debts, but not its assets? It is not a sensible way to manage one’s activities. The student loan book should be left exactly where it is."

With his remarks wanting to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, Donald Trump has shown himself to be a dangerous racist behaving in a way likely to incite violence. As such his presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good.

It's completely unacceptable that someone has, allegedly, been denied access to travel because of the colour of their skin. From Rosa Parks to Bristol's own Paul Stephenson, activists have struggled to ensure, and maintain, equal access to public transport for everyone regardless of their skin colour. Not tackling this head-on sets a dangerous precedent and will surely lead to more incidents of discrimination. National Express needs to address this serious allegation and win back public confidence. It should take this opportunity to become an industry leader and set an example in this time of tension when discrimination against Muslims is on the rise. Labour Councillor for Easton, Afzal Shah, said: “Have we really returned to days where people are kicked off buses because of the colour of skin, their appearance or religion? National Express has a lot of questions to answer. Yes, people who are behaving suspiciously on public transport should be challenged, but when someone is apparently asked to leave a bus because they are a Muslim carrying a bag, that is unacceptable and Islamophobic.” The allegations are serious and could amount to a criminal offence under the discrimination act. This petition is supported by ACORN Bristol, Bristol Somali Forum and Bristol Green Party. Links: - B24/7 Marvin Rees' article: http://www.bristol247.com/channel/opinion/your-say/politics/mayor-should-confront-national-express - Bristol Post - latest article about the protest: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-bus-station-protest-way-Muslim-treated/story-28387134-detail/story.html - Bristol Cable: https://thebristolcable.org/2015/12/muslim-man-thrown-off-bus-full-inquiry-demanded/ - The Mirror - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-man-thrown-national-express-6967457 - Bristol Post - witness statements: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Man-thrown-National-Express-coach-Bristol/story-28312057-detail/story.html - Bristol Post - Ibrahim Mohamed Ismail's statement: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Kicked-National-Express-coach-m-Muslim-Bristol/story-28320122-detail/story.html - The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-express-muslim-passenger-thrown-off-bus-was-asked-to-leave-due-to-concerns-over-excess-a6763571.html - A similar incident on National Express in June 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/25/national-express-investigates-claim-of-drivers-racist-and-islamophobic-tirade - 'Muslim man forced off London Underground after commuter accuses him of acting 'suspiciously' with an iPad' (10th Dec 2015): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-man-forced-off-london-underground-after-commuter-accuses-him-of-acting-suspiciously-with-an-a6766941.html

Due to illness, I had to change career later in life, however in order to go back to college, I had to rely on my parents to fund my education, but when im qualified I will be paying into the Tax system. I could of sat on disability allowance for the rest of my life, however I am not ready to throw in the towel. I have a lot to offer within society, at the age of 48, I went back to school. There are 20 other students in my class in the same boat, just think how many more would get an education with a little help along the way and will give back in the long run.

The behaviour of some of MPs in the House of Commons has become completely unacceptable This includes ,shouting ,interupting, sarcasm, hecklng, finger jabbing, and sexist behaviour. it wouldn't be acceptable in my place of work ,or yours, and would quickly become a disciplinary matter. We request a full review of the code of conduct, so that it is up to date and fit for purpose in a modern workplace

This prevents a change of use or demolition without applying for planning consent. It also facilitates a Community buyout if there is sufficient support/funding available but there is NO OBLIGATION to buy.

Bristol Council currently uses four glyphosate herbicides including Monsanto's Roundup on our streets and parks. This is despite the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified glyphosate as likely to cause cancer in humans. The WHO finding sits alongside a wealth of existing evidence that raises alarming questions marks over the long term safety of exposure to glyphosate both on its own and in combination with other chemicals found in formulas such as Roundup. The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share this city with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. If Bristol is to have any credentials as the current European Green Capital, it must exercise the precautionary principle and follow the example of cities such as Chicago, Paris and Rotterdam by banning this spraying in public places. This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this city, of course including our beloved bees. For more information see this article from The Bristol Cable: https://thebristolcable.org/2015/10/bristol-monsanto-and-chemicals/ There are viable safe alternatives to glyphosates. The Netherlands have outright banned glyphosates in public spaces and are using a hot water treatment instead. A hot water and foam method is also available in the UK and Bristol Council is already aware that this can be a more effective alternative than hot water on its own. Glyphosates are the cheapest option but we must send the message loud and clear that value is not just about price and that the health and safety issues around glyphosate render its 'cheap and easy' status irrelevant. Other effective methods may cost more in cash terms but represent far better value to local residents. Using a formula such as Roundup in our public spaces is simply unacceptable no matter how cheap and quick it makes the task of urban weed management.