Societies are judged by how they take care of their most vulnerable. As you yourself, Mr Cameron, put it so very well: "...Fairness means giving money to help the poorest in society. People who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly - I want you to know we will always look after you. That's the sign of a civilised society and it's what I believe..." ... David Cameron 6 Oct 2010 Those in power should not be cynically trying to distract the public by attacking the weakest; the young, students, immigrants, sick, disabled and elderly. Don't expect everyone to be fooled by these tactics for too much longer. Sooner or later, they'll wake up and realise that they're next in line. Why not make our democratic society fairer by asking more from those who can afford it - those who have profited most from the shrinkage and privatisation of our national assets; the corporate companies, the bankers, CEOs and executives, the politicians with their own private health care companies, beancounters and lawyers, shareholders, the hedgefund managers, the private equity companies, PFI contractors, russian oligarchs, and other rich and thriving individuals? The lucky wealthy have grown richer by exploiting the poor and powerless, and this 'Bedroom Tax' is yet another attempt to reduce the welfare state. Meanwhile the government continues to cut, chipping away at our welfare state, disparaging worker representation through Unions, closing hospitals, schools, public housing, swimming pools, libraries, welfare benefits, ad nauseum. The rich don't need, and don't want to pay for, any of the welfare state - they just want to benefit from the rich prizes of opportunity as public services collapse, and they pick up the cherries. And, of course their wealth has grown enormously since the recession started. Despite the poor losing their homes, the wealthy continue to do very nicely "Thank you very much" on their fat salaries and fat pensions, insider / offshore dealings, their directorships, private schools, investments, private healthcare, property portfolio, gyms, golf clubs, not forgetting their offshore: bank accounts, companies, and lavish homes with untaxed spare bedrooms galore. Why are they so greedy? Why do they need my bedroom? Will they force me out of my home?

The employees of Remploy are mainly disabled and their work there provides them with a high degree of independance, self esteem and the benefits of working with other people. closing these factories, especialy in the current economic climate is likely to throw them on the mercy of the benefits system.

The law is a discriminatory one which relies on an individual police officer's judgement and, as such, is open to abuse. The police officer is open to criticism for misuse of the order and under 16 year old's are vulnerable to overzealous application and miss-accusations. The discriminatory nature of the order encourages the hatred and fear of young people and allows some to feel justified in discriminatory attitudes toward them. It encourages those who have suffered at the hands of badly behaved youths to believe that they are all like that and to become more afraid. It will only serve to alienate young people and make them feel that the police are there simply to control them but not to protect them. Already young people in Bangor are avoiding going out to the cinema and to after school clubs for fear of being caught in the curfew or of being beaten up by the marauding gangs that this order implies are on the loose in the city center. Bangor is a lovely historic place with much to offer young and old alike. It suffers from very little anti-social behavior apart from a very few people in limited areas and the usual after pub and club problems present in all cities. It is suffering in the downturn from an empty high street (the longest in the country) but there was no rioting in Bangor last year, the out of town JJB sports, PC World etc were not ransacked as was seen in other towns and cities across the UK, so why Bangor? There was no consultation with the public or even their elected representatives on the City Council. This is despite the ACPO guidance that there should be consultation with the effected community and a Rowntree report, which concludes that these laws have only been effective where consultation and involvement had taken place. This law is badly worded, heavy handed, discriminatory and draconian and it should be stopped now!

The Channel Island of Sark has just 600 inhabitants. They lead a peaceful and historic way of life that has remained largely unchanged for hundreds of years. The islanders get around on bikes or by horse and cart - there are no cars or tarmac roads on the island. It is a unique and beautiful place, a rare piece of tranquillity in a chaotic modern world. But now the billionaire owners of The Telegraph newspaper, the Barclay brothers, are threatening that way of life. Twenty years ago, they bought the tiny neighbouring island of Brecqhou and built a huge mock gothic castle that looms over Sark. Ever since, they have been buying up every hotel, small business and piece of land they can get their hands on. The islands status as a tax haven means the brothers have to pay no tax on their fortune back to the UK. The Sarkees have been doing everything they can to resist their power over the island. In 2008, the Barclays tried to flood the island's first democratically elected government with their allies. When the islanders emphatically rejected them in favour of their own representatives, the brothers retaliated by firing everyone who worked in any of the businesses they had bought out - that amounted to a sixth of Sark's population losing their jobs. It doesn't end there. Those who speak out against the brothers' stranglehold on the island are publicly dragged through the dirt in the Sark Newsletter - a weekly propaganda piece written by the Barclays' lieutenant, Kevin Delaney. The islanders recently told the Guardian and BBC that they live in fear in a "culture of bullying and intimidation." The Barclay brothers company Sark Estate Management (SEM) has turned much of their good quality agricultural land over to vineyards, land that was traditionally used by the islanders for centuries for growing crops and grazing livestock. In November 2012 a peaceful protest at the Sark Mill vineyards against the spread of vines resulted in 120 Sark residents signing a petition asking the Barclays to reconsider their vineyard project but this was ignored. SEM continue to spray the vineyards with chemicals and residents fear for the health of Sark's pristine ecosystem and their fresh water supplies which come from under the ground. Sark is a dependency of the Crown but, so far, our government has left the islanders to fend for themselves. The Department of Justice has admitted that it has an "ultimate responsibility to ensure good governance" of Sark. They are aware of what's going on - former Justice Minister Lord McNally has already been to visit the island. It's time Lord Faulks, the new Justice Minister and Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, lived up to that responsibility. You can find out more about the situation in Sark in this recent Panorama show: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01px74c/Panorama_The_Tax_Haven_Twins/ Or this earlier Today programme piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709518.stm

The age of criminal responsibility in England is one the lowest in Europe, and the statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people. The age of criminal responsibility needs to be reviewed in light of the standards set by the UN Convention and these international comparisons. Young children are simply not capable of the sophisticated mental reasoning required to be held fully responsible for criminal actions, and we need to take a far more "welfare based" approach in dealing with young people who commit serious crimes. Furthermore, there is concern among neuroscientists in this field that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is unreasonably low given the emerging understanding of how slowly the brains of children mature, and the evidence of individual differences suggests that an arbitrary cut-off age may not be justifiable.

The cost is unaffordable and the building is not fit for purpose.

Pot hole's are showing the Decay Economy surrounding us increasing economy waste management.  Increasing Tyres pollution,Noise pollution, in suburban areas. The pot hole disturbes the peace and privacy of residents and this in turn decreases the  value of the property near pot hole's and proximity  of manhole cover that  are in poor repair which creates a dangerous  environment that treat cyclists, pedestrian's and vehicles . Mirrors  trimmed edges..of country lane and national parks are another hazard to watch for...Rather than putting the costs and responsibility on the vehicles owners and insurances companies, the road maintenance and council's must take action to fix the Pot Holes  and Maintain road Surface without  hazards .with the income generated from the Road tax and Council Tax, and the  revenue that the potholes generated according to AI is 16 billions. Consider the 20% as income tax fixing this Decay Economy is the highest Priority.  Almost 250k People's Are Following My Post on Google Maps. which demonstrates the interest and growing concerns the public as about the poor and dangerous conditions of Our Road.And a keen desire for a solution from the Government. Well serviced Road are at the Root of strong infrastructure and Economy , It's Also Paramount to Reduce the CO2 Pollution,  to achieve Net Zero Emissions by 2025, introduction of Biochar technology in road surfacing will also help with the climate change, I'm anticipating your help in this Matters.Best Wishes

Because everyone should respect heroes who make sacrifices for the freedom and safety of the rest of us. How many of us would do what they have done? We know that Trump is a coward by his actions to avoid the US draft for service in Vietnam.

Uber is severely damaging local taxi drivers’ livelihoods in Cheshire West and Chester. Since Uber began operating in Chester, drivers are being charged commission rates of up to 50–55%, leaving them with only 45–50% of the fare. This makes it extremely difficult for local drivers to earn a fair living. Despite these high commissions, Uber fares are often higher than those of local taxi firms, offering no real benefit to passengers while significantly harming local businesses. In addition, many Uber vehicles and drivers licensed from Wolverhampton operate in Chester with little local knowledge or accountability. Residents and drivers regularly report unprofessional behaviour, including unsafe parking and blocking roads without consideration for traffic or public safety. We therefore call on Cheshire West and Chester Council to take action and remove Uber from operating in the area, in order to protect local drivers, maintain professional standards, and support the local transport economy. Additionally, many residents are increasingly worried that insufficient budget allocation for local authorities is leading to a growing reliance on drivers coming from outside the area. Unfortunately, this has resulted in several challenges, including a lack of familiarity with local routes, reduced service quality, and concerns about professionalism and accountability. Local drivers, on the other hand, understand the community, local regulations, and expectations far better. With proper funding and support, local authorities would be in a stronger position to employ and retain qualified local drivers, improving service standards while also supporting local employment and the local economy. I respectfully request that the council consider increasing budget provisions for local authorities so they can prioritize hiring and supporting local drivers. This change would contribute to safer roads, more reliable services, and greater trust within the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope the council will give this matter the attention it deserves for the benefit of our local area.

Donald Trump's proposed 'Board of Peace' is an attempt to entirely sideline the UN and create an alternative body, headed by himself, to replace it, to do the bidding of an extremist and dictatorial US president.  The inclusion of Putin, at a time when Russia has invaded and occupies part of another sovereign nation, makes a mockery of 'peace'. The UK should have nothing to do with it.  If we do not want a new world order arranged solely around the perceived interests of the US, one in which 'might is right' is the only principle, Trump's 'Board of Peace' needs to be stopped in its tracks. The only way to do this is to ensure that the UK has nothing to do with it and encourages all other countries to follow that line. 

King Charles should not go to America & meet with Trump until the president has stopped his aggressive stance on Greenland. This is a sovereign area and Trump cannot continue to bully world leaders to get what he wants.  By the King cancelling his proposed visit, this would send a clear message that appeasement will not again be agreed upon by the UK, as was done almost 100 years ago by the then British government to another bully

Girls in high school experience pre menstrual syndrome and periods every month.  This can massively affect attendance and  and this needs to be taken into consideration with attendance figures - and especially in all girls school.  The effects of periods should not be minimised, dismissed or ignored.   There must be a code introduced on register for when girls are absent due to periods and their effects - these absences should never be unauthorised.