Too many people are getting dogs and seeing them as possessions or "money makers" by over breeding them for some easy cash or using the as "status dogs" using them to fight. When a dog is so cheap to buy, people are buying them then realizing they didn't want one in the first place. People are getting dogs free from people and selling them on. They are now treated as something with no value, as easy as if they were selling a mobile phone. This leads to unwanted dogs clogging up the kennels taking up time and money because of irresponsible owners. By making everyone licence their dog, this would weed out people who actually care and love their dogs. By having a breeding licence with vet check and behavioral expert, this will stamp out deformities caused through inbreeding and stop the aggressive gene passing on to the next generation, thus reducing the risk dramatically of "dangerous dogs". It is very important for the BSL to be banned as no dog should be targeted and killed because of what breed it is. You wouldn't go and jail or kill all murderers children because of what their parents did... so why do it to a dog? It can't help that it was born and there is no proof to say that dog will grow up aggressive. This should be abolished and every dog tested separately and treated as individual cases. If you really wanted to stop dangerous dogs and the suffering of dogs happening all across the UK, there is no excuse. Act now and stop the suffering!

This is important because Oxford is an expanding city, with many more young people than other cities. This policy will result in six swimming lanes less in Oxford's already overcrowded pools. The pool is within walking distance of 2 secondary schools and 3 primary schools and is the centre of a transport hub. Cowley is already densely populated with very limited leisure health sports facilities.

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.

To give us the opportunity to go where the work is, give our young people the widest choice to access education and to stop the gentrification of our rural areas.

As reported in the MIRROR by Martin Bagot 26th march 2014. I urge you to click the link and read the information in order that you will also agree this practice is totally unacceptable. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/live-pigs-strapped-body-armour-3289516

It is time to take a stand against animal abuse in ALL IT'S FORMS....Animals have as much right to welfare and to life as people....animal husbandry seems to have long since vanished. Wildlife is fighting for survival, as indiscriminate culls are enforced by people with little or no experience of right or wrong, scientists are being ignored and greed is taking over Animals need a voice, and we the people must be that voice....So far three states in the USA have implemented such a register, and it is to be rolled out across other states in the future....it is a start...ARE WE GOING TO LAG BEHIND...

Women in politics are severely underrepresented, especially in the Conservative Party - this is perhaps not surprising given your comments and attitude. As a Member of Parliament, you are a public figure and you should set a better example. http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Glamour-model-picture-row-Conservative-Richard/story-20846024-detail/story.html

Housing Associations and Property Managers set rents and service charges for thousands of households in the UK. Today, there is little apparent transparency of their processes or into whether their charges are fair and offer value for money. Many members of the public simply don't trust them and see no way to change the situation without costly legal action. With many customers of these organisations falling into 'at risk' categories for one reason or another, the lack of effective regulation is leaving many at risk of debt and homelessness. For instance, Circle 33 has recently announced increases in charges which sees some shared owners in flats face increases of up to 147%. This is combined with increases in building insurance in some cases of up to 40%. No real detailed explanation as to why such a hike (if you combine the 147% and 40% together they equal 623 times the current rate of inflation) has so far been issued to all those affected by these inflation-busting increases.

1 Service persons contributed indirectly to pensions by adjusted pay, and receive nothing for thier contributions. 2 Many Veterans served long periods of service, but due to many reasons did not reach the required 15 years service for officers, or 22 years for other ranks. 3 Many were demobbed as low a 2 days before reaching the pensionable 15 or 22 years. Families supported their partners and parents, moving at least every 3 years on postings, or living without a partner for long periods. Children were subjected to new schools, and teachers, or were boarded. All service persons had the vision of leaving the services after the required period with a good gratuity, and pension. And of course the chance of being able to work, and increasing the resulting pension at pensionable age. How many were demobbed a few days before the full serving period?. Many Veterans today just manage to exist, pride is that what keeps them going. They also live in the knowledge that service persons today receive a pension pro rate after just 2 years service. This is not only an abuse of equal rights, but also unfair, we need help because of the negative attitude towards our efforts to get justice. Things are not getting better for Veterans, not only are many on the bread line, but now are suffering abuse, as a thanks for the service, and loyalty given over the years. https://www.facebook.com/groups/weforveterans/files/

The Runcorn Bridge connects two parts of the same town, Runcorn and Widnes, known collectively as Halton. The cost to local people who must use this bridge to go to work, to the hospital, to local shops, ice rink, cinema, cemetery, to Liverpool City and Airport, visit relations and many other reasons, the people of Halton will have to pay a local tax otherwise known as a toll. A voucher system has been offered giving locals a small discount but the bridge should be toll free for all.

I had to pay over £600 for my very old dog to be put to sleep on a Sunday. I do not want others to have to worry about these fees at such a difficult time.

Your Choice Barnet, that provides services for adults with learning and physical disabilities. Your Choice Barnet Ltd (YCB) began operating as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) in February 2012 and 100% owned by Barnet Council. In February 2013 a year after its creation Your Choice Barnet, was in serious financial difficulties and as a result, it looked to make savings by cutting staff terms and conditions and reduce staffing levels in some of the social care settings. It also received a £1 million bail out from Barnet Homes requiring a 6% interest repayment. A significant number of loyal hard working care staff were made redundant last year as a result of this cut which has led to an increase in agency staff delivering services. In January 2014, Your Choice Barnet were still in a financial crisis and stated they needed to cut the staff bill by a further £400,000. It is obvious to everyone that the ongoing attack on the terms & conditions of care staff will ultimately lead to: • fewer stimulating activities in a safe environment for adults with disabilities in Barnet. • fewer staff to work with adults with vulnerable disabilities in Barnet. • less supervision of, training and support for remaining skilled staff. • loss of professional staff and lower morale and motivation among remaining staff. • negative impact on staff health and well-being, with a knock-on impact on service quality. Both the Francis Inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the Winterbourne View abuse scandal highlighted the shocking results of employing unskilled and unsupervised staff. I note in a recent article http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/maude-praises-the-barnet-formula.html you have been extolling the virtues of mass outsourcing “Our approach is already paying dividends, by allowing us to cut Council Tax bills to all residents next year.” Surely you must concede that instead of making a gesture of funding a tax cut, which will save a Band D taxpayer all of 26p a week; the money would have been better spent on ensuring safe and quality services for adults with disabilities. In another article http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_can_make_future_council_tax_cuts_due_to_one_barnet_outsourcing_says_westminster_finance_chief_1_3429038 you are quoted as saying: “We’ve made enough savings via the One Barnet programme so that we can meet our budget and distribute the money saved, back to the community.” In which case why are you not ensuring the savings you are referring to are redirected to Your Choice Barnet?