This will give better protection for birds of prey on shooting estates. The Scottish Government has made landowners share the blame when gamekeepers are found to have killed birds of prey. The UK government should do the same. For more details please refere to the BBC report dated 6/11/2014 re the conviction of yet another gamekeeper.

This proposal will have a permanent detrimental effect on the biodiversity and historic environment. One of the last unspoilt areas of county Durham is under threat of irreversible destruction for executive housing and sheltered accommodation. The area is home to the bats, badgers, otters and many more protected species. The spa grounds is a conservation area & county wildlife site and a greenfield site. Ancient woodland will be felled to make way for an access road. This application contravenes all of the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines and the local plan for the area.

For 46 years Stonebridge playground has served the community. It has supported 3 generations of children and young people with special events, camping trips, and opportunities for fun and learning. It’s well-used and well loved. The playground has been crucial in the integration of many different ethnic and cultural groups including children with special needs. The playground has a lot of support not just from the community. Former Olympic gold medalist, Audley Harrison MBE, who attended when he was a boy, has championed our cause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83x9Z61Edkk&feature=youtu.be And the local paper the Brent & Kilburn Times is behind the campaign: http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/environment/stonebridge_adventure_playground_campaigners_reach_their_1_000_signature_petition_target_1_3826047 But we are a small charity fighting a large organisation, Brent Council. They want more homes and more school places for children. We say what happens after school, at weekends and in school holidays? Not just for the children of one school, but for many in this area; when there is nothing for them, nowhere to meet their friends, We need to save this sanctuary in the midst of a concrete jungle for children and young people!

Latest Update: The first specification outlines have been released and it is still 70% theory! Now it is 60% Exam 10% written coursework and still only 30% Practical! Following the consultation regarding changes to GCSE PE (in which the opinions of PE teachers seem to have been completely ignored) the government are forcing incredibly damaging changes to GCSE PE which will have far reaching impacts right down to year 7 PE lessons. They have decided that the course will change from the current 60% practical 40% theory to 30% practical and 70% theory! This change will almost completely take the physical/practical aspect out of Physical Education. They are also proposing to massively narrow the activities that students can use as the practical element (moving to a much more traditional / Public school offering of activities). The impact of this will mean a narrowing of the activities offered by secondary schools which will feed down through the year groups. The move to an almost solely theoretical course will also have an impact on the activity level of students in PE lessons, due to schools trying to maximise the performance of students by focussing much more on theory lessons rather than actually being physically active and taking part in sport. This will have long lasting and damaging effects on the health and fitness of future generations. The changes will also take away another avenue for students who are less academic to be successful and get a qualification in an area that they may wish to follow as a career. If these changes go through then many schools may choose to no longer offer Physical Education as a GCSE and the change to the GCSE PE course may well be the final nail in the coffin for physical education in secondary schools, if people do not force a change of direction.

Of all the houses on the Esplanade front in Greenock it's boldest, brightest and most fun. And this shouldn't change. 'Inverclyde's head of regeneration and planning Stuart Jamieson stated: "The bright yellow and gold tones of the dwelling are not colours which would traditionally have been used on a house of this period style or have been found within this part of the Greenock West End Conservation Area. The colours form an intrusive feature within the streetscape and are therefore not appropriate.' Reference - Inverclyde Now 04/11/2014 - http://www.inverclydenow.com/photostream/13257-yellow-house-is-too-bright-for-planners This is micromanagement from the council on a ridiculous level. The result of being adverse to change and using redundant policies as a reason. Judging by the response on Inverclyde Now's facebook post of this issue it appears that a majority of people wish the council to reverse this decision and are quite happy with the colour of the house. Such reasons as: "its their house, brightens [the] place up something different !" "Shocking! It's their house and should be able to paint it any colour they like. This town is miserable and dreary and our council are trying their hardest to finish it off any way they can" and "I love the yellow house as do my children it's their house let them do what they want with it !" These are just a few of the hundreds of replies. Can you imagine an Esplanade in which all the houses followed suit? Resulting in a warm, vibrant and fun coastal scene. Welcoming the many cruise ships that dock in Greenock. I'm sure tourists to the area would love to see such a sight yet Inverclyde council appear to be stuck in their old, dreary ways by requesting the owners to repaint the house a more 'acceptable' colour. Are the council representing the views of local people on this? Because that's what they're supposed to do. Let them know what you think.

HIGH TRAFFIC impact, on congestion, queuing and air quality in Malton, especially Yorkersgate, Butcher Corner, Castle Howard Rd, Middlecave Rd and Horsemarket Rd HIGH VISUAL impact, on the countryside, AONB, footpaths, and nearby properties HIGH SIZE at 500 houses, 25% size of Malton today=25% more traffic HIGH UNCERTAINTY on this OUTLINE ONLY application in amounts/location or retail and commercial development, and amounts/location of high rise buildings, where open space would be, where access would be, consequent lack of guarantee of how much traffic or visual impact there would be, lack of a building design tied to the application leading to uncertainty of what any of the development would really look like in practice HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL to the development of a Neighbourhood Plann, which would give residents a genuine say in where they think housing should go in Malton and Norton.

North Yorkshire County Council is trying AGAIN to close local Libraries, if communities don’t agree to raise funds and run them themselves on a voluntary basis. The Council are carrying out a “consultation” but the choices are a) you run your own library or b) your library will be closed down. This affects 20 rural libraries in North Yorkshire. In July 2014, Mr Justice Collins ruled in the High Court that the public consultation in Lincolnshire was flawed and had failed to deal with an alternative proposal. A similar flawed consultation has taken place in Leicestershire. Libraries are such an important hub of local rural communities. They are used by the young, the elderly, job seekers, people accessing the internet and others. I live in Bentham, a small market town in Craven. If our Library were to close down, I would need to travel to the nearest “core” Library in Skipton, a mere 27 miles away, at a cost of £10.10 by train. How would the young or the elderly get there? Bentham wouldn’t be the friendly town with a sense of community without the Library.

We should have a choice of buying music without swearing in for our children. They will sell more when we have the option to download the radio version.

Labour has said it will scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a second, elected house. This will not add anything to parliament, it will just add another layer of establishment figures that passed through private schools, did PPE at Oxbridge and will move into directorships when finished. The selection could be one member per constituency or several per county or some other geographical boundary. We need a second house populated by people that didn't get into power by knowing someone important or buying their way in. The MPs/PM must have no possibility of influencing the make-up of the new house. There must be no incentive for new members to use their time to attach themselves to the establishment. This will most likely lead to women, ethnic minorities, the poor, the unemployed, the disabled, those that didn't go to public school, etc being proportionately represented. If they need advice on points of law they can use the same methods the MPs use (civil service, advisors, etc). The second house should be able to send ill thought out legislation back to the MPs for revision. In addition it should be able to propose legislation for MPs to debate. We currently have nobody in either house that knows what it's like to live in poverty and have no network of rich friends to fall back on. This should redress the balance. It will prevent the new house being populated by those who want power (and therefore become corrupted by it) If anyone selected doesn't want to stand (or has to leave) they can be replaced by a further random selection. Selection would be very cheap - eg picking a random national insurance number. No-one can be a member of the new house for more than one session. The session should last the same amount of time as the MPs session (5 years) but could possibly be offset by two and a half years to prevent MPs from 'buying off' the members in any way for a parliamentary session. The new house would be located outside of London if a physical location is necessary and would allow for remote meeting (eg telecommuting) for as much time as the new house deems necessary.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.

There are numerous reports and accounts of our claim including the findings of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Public Accounts committee - (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/394/39404.htm). Further 105,344 people agreed with Debbie Sayers and myself when we called for Hold Iain Duncan Smith to be held to account for misusing statistics http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-must-face-2912624, to no avail, this is despite the Government agreeing that "statistics should be presented in a way that is fair, accurate and 'unspun' ". These distorted 'facts' are used to further deprive disabled people of the essential benefits needed to manage their conditions; so far the 'Cuts' have resulted in disabled people losing an average of £4,410 per person - 9 times more than the burden placed on most other citizens http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/uploads/attachment/354/a-fair-society.pdf. These mis-truths are also responsible for justifying the latest proposals, irrelevant of the Evidence http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/disabled-people-threatened-another-cut-4534714 Iain Duncan Smith continues to ignore his Government and persists in misusing statistics, and it is for these reasons we believe it is time for the Powers of the Commissioner for standards to be exercised, and for Iain Duncan Smith to be independently and openly investigated for breach of Conduct Jayne Linney & Debbie Sayers

Many patients are very anxious about the future of their local hospital, particularly after various media disclosures, including the announcement that 1,000 beds in hospitals across the city (of Birmingham) are due to be axed! Our campaign group, Save Good Hope’s Local Services, brings together local people who use and care very much about our local hospital, Good Hope, in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. We are independent of any political party and are campaigning to stop the closure of key departments at our hospital. Closures of key departments at Good Hope Hospital could be the start of a slippery slope: in many areas of England, hospitals have already either been downgraded or even closed. One of our main aims, as stated in an earlier petition, has recently been successfully achieved. A public meeting to discuss the Trust’s proposals finally having being held in October, after much campaigning! And now we are calling for people across Birmingham to say NO to the closure of key departments at the hospital. These were revealed in the Trust's document (before the consultations had even finished!) as the following: 1. The transfer of Trauma FROM Good Hope to Heartlands Hospital; 2. The transfer of Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology and Colorectal Surgery FROM Good Hope to Heartlands and Solihull, both great distances to travel for many people and particularly difficult for carers and those they care for, the elderly, very young and disabled. In response to concern already expressed by many people at the ongoing consultations regarding transport, the Trust have suggested the equivalent of `taxi’ ambulances so to speak. But who would pay for this? Even if it was to be the Trust, how long would they actually pay before saying they had run out of funds? Would patients then be expected to pay, including those from other areas even further out, such as Tamworth & Lichfield? The Heart Of England Trust has been reported in the media as being the highest earning Trust IN THE COUNTRY from car parking charges, netting an annual profit of nearly £4million! At the public meeting, one of our campaigners asked the Trust why and if that money could be used to help keep our hospital services local? At present, it is obvious that this Trust STILL lacks openness, transparency and empathy with patients. They need to really start to `think like a patient’, because at the moment, they don’t.