The public have no come-back, especially in rural areas, as it's not written down in law that they have to provide them. It is a public health issue as people will use other sites if necessary. This is a basic human right, which has more impact on women and disabled people, as well as workers in rural areas such as van drivers and bus drivers.

These collars have nasty spikes in them which dig into the poor helpless dogs neck. Pinch collars have a series of inward facing, metal prongs which are designed to tighten around the dog’s neck and cause pain and discomfort when tension is applied through the lead. It is animal cruelty and must be stopped. Luvmydog.co.uk could help us stand up against these cruel devices by stopping all sales and removing them from their site. RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and other organisations have already come out against them, see below. Now we call upon luvmydog to join them. https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/-/CBY/Joint%20statement%20ETDs%20and%20prong%20collars%20April%202014.pdf

Since 2010, no major party has stood for election in the Buckingham constituency. Following an archaic, and blatantly anti-democratic convention, none of these parties stands against the Speaker. The electorate has therefore had the choice of voting for the Speaker, John Bercow – who is unable to vote in the House of Commons – but not for Conservative, Labour or Lib-Dem candidates. Mr Bercow has just announced that he will stand for election once again. Buckingham constituents thus face another five years of being unrepresented in Parliament. The Speaker is unable to vote on any motion in Parliament so his constituents are effectively disenfranchised. This issue is of national importance - we are being denied our democratic rights!

This petition is important for the simple reason that the Post Office is a vital part of the community in New Malden, and the only 'main' Post Office for a while around. Even a busy town like Kingston no longer has a main Post Office. The Post Office are trying to cut at least three, potentially four members of staff at the end of April, to be replaced by machines in Mid-May. The people of New Malden don't want machines to pay their bills - they prefer interacting with humans over the counter. DID YOU KNOW? Since 2012, if these plans are to go ahead, the Post Office will have lost 6 members of staff in 2 years - that's 50%! From 12 members of staff, to 6. Queues are already long enough now in New Malden Post Office, and it can't manage with 4 staff less. We need the Post Office to recruit new members of staff at New Malden Post Office to make up for this staff loss, and to, in effect, save New Malden Post Office. (See More at www.coombemonthly.co.uk)

A company called LuvMyDog.co.uk is selling these, As my MP I would like you to investigate this petition, and outlaw collars that cause dogs pain and discomfort. There appears to be absolutely no need for a collar like this to be produced. Please help me outlaw products that injure defenseless creatures in this way. https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/-/CBY/Joint%20statement%20ETDs%20and%20prong%20collars%20April%202014.pdf

1. South East is over crowded, expensive and takes up too much of the UKs resources. 2. If Parliament were not in the South East resources would be shared more equitably. 3. Manchester is the second largest city in England and could expand to balance the disparity between the South East and the North of England. 4.To work this has to be a permanent move, not a Parliament that sits sometimes in London and sometimes in Manchester. 5. Manchester is more accessible for regions such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. See:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/westminster-manchester-democracy-parliament

We as a community attended the centres for socialising with parents and are children antenatal appointments college courses and many more. We as a community that have had the opportunity to go to the centres are worried there will be nothing for the new mummy's and daddy's of the area.

Public safety is at risk due to the Governments plans to place the supervision of offenders into the hands of private companies. The Probation Service is being dismantled as I write. Myself and colleagues, up and down the country, are absolutely terrified about the serious consequences this will have on protecting the public from crime. I understand that many people reading this, may not know much about the Probation Service, and therefore will not realise just how important this issue is for all of us. The role of the police is understood, as is the purpose of prison, but Probation work appears less visible within our communities. I also understand, that many people may not feel inclined to read something about "offenders". Why care about them when they have shown disregard for society in committing crime? Well, please pay attention because these proposals will hurt all of us. Firstly, no one wants to be a victim of crime, but to be a victim of a crime that could have been prevented? Under the new proposals, not only will offenders be passed back and forth between agencies but this will happen at the worst possible time i.e. at times of crisis and rising risk. Risk can change within hours, not days; and quick, effective responses are essential. The army were drafted in for the Olympics security fiasco, but who will rescue the failing private companies when they are responsible for managing offenders? Secondly, if you aren't already worried, then consider the cost of these plans to the taxpayer. The proposals have not been costed; indeed the government's own risk assessment acknowledges that financial risk cannot even be risk assessed because of the absence of baseline information. Payment by Results has been the prime rationale for refusing to allow probation Trusts to even be allowed to bid for their work even though they are performing to a proven high standard. Nine million pounds has already be spent on "Transforming Rehabilitation" consultants. The government’s Transforming Rehabilitation proposals are completely untested. The changes proposed by the government’s plans in relation to extending supervision to those serving less than 12 month prison sentences, have nothing to do with the current work of the Probation Service, as there is currently NO statutory supervision for adults in this group. Conflating the need to reduce the re-offending of this group with the plans to dismantle the Probation Service is therefore, at best, disingenuous. I am starting this campaign due to my desire to prevent a miscarriage of justice against the population of the UK. Probation staff are part of a dedicated workforce, often going above and beyond the call of duty, in order to ensure that the work is completed properly. Probation staff will be on strike on March 31st and 1st April 2014, as splitting up the Probation Service is considered dangerous and legally dubious. It is being done in the absence of any scrutiny and it has no credible advocates. I have not been able to cover all the issues, so please make it your business to find out and hold this government to account. Please, please, support this campaign as we need your help.

Studies in anaesthetised calves have shown that cutting the blood vessels in the neck causes activity in the brain which indicates that pain would be present if the animal were conscious. This brain activity is prevented by effectively stunning calves with a captive bolt (concussion on the front of the skull). Imams in many countries accept that, as the stunning process does not cause death or stop the heart then it is acceptable for halal meat to be produced from animals that are stunned. Animal welfare legislation is not an infringement of religious freedom of expression and laws designed to protect animals should apply to all animals slaughtered in the UK. We petition the department to ensure that all animals are effectively stunned prior to slaughter.

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.