Appealing the decision would waste still more taxpayer cash which should be spent on making the NHS better. It would cause continued damaging uncertainty and anxiety for NHS staff and local people. The decision to close vital Lewisham services was completely flawed and has now been found unlawful. The government has already spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a misguided attempt to close Lewisham hospital services. It should stop now, not throw good money after bad. If the High Court judgement were to be overturned, no hospital anywhere in the country would be safe from closure. See www.savelewishamhospital.com/ and www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs for more information.

As you may be aware, there are already numerous methods of blocking access to pornography where parents wish to do so. A block at the ISP level takes what is and is not blocked out of the control of parents, with potentially dangerous results. Video chat sites aimed at teenagers and certain social media sites are (as identified by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, CEOP) some of the places paedophiles go to prey on children, but as these are not 'adult' in nature they will most likely not come under the block. Parents being told their internet connection is being filtered for adult content to protect their children will therefore believe their children are 'safe' when they are in fact being left exposed to serious risks. The emphasis should be on educating parents about dangers like these, helping them to set up their own restrictions so their children are protected, and highlighting the fact that no blocking software or filters are a substitute for parental supervision. Restricting access to information based on blacklists and filtering at the ISP level represents a severe curtailment of civil liberties. Such practices are typically employed by governments wishing to restrict access to information and ideas they find threatening or undesirable (the aforementioned People's Republic of China being a good example). Prime Minister Cameron took the opportunity to also state that certain 'extreme' fantasy material (involving no illegal acts) would now be made illegal in all of the UK, signalling his intent to restrict access to material that is currently legal. Sure enough, one week later it was revealed that the ISP filtering may cover far more than just pornography; categories of materials that may be blocked include violent material, extremist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, and even web forums and so-called "esoteric material" (see http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall). I would urge you to carefully consider these points when and if these issues are debated in the house. The CEOP previously identified other priorities for protecting children from abuse such as finding ways to monitor hidden and encrypted networks, and greater inter-country law enforcement cooperation. I believe these approaches should be selected in preference to the measures mentioned by the Prime Minister, measures that will ultimately fail to catch the most serious perpetrators and are themselves open to serious abuse.

Given the recent revelations about GCHQ's 'Tempora' programme UK citizens are facing the greatest threat to their civil liberties in this country's history. Indiscriminate surveillance is being collected on the populace on a massive scale with no public mandate or accountabilty. This is being allowed through a legal loophole which would have been legitimised with the Snooper's Charter. If this kind of system is allowed to exist at all at the very least it should have a mandate from both the public and parliament - with external accountability and auditing. No publicly accountable body currently exists to audit this programme.

We believe that arming the rebels will not end the conflict in Syria or contribute to that end. Further we believe that sending weapons to the rebels could lead to the escalation of the violence in Syria and the wider Middle East region.

In 1913 Emily Davison ran in front of the King's horse and was killed, in what was probably the most historically memorable event of the movement for Women's Suffrage. Emily Davison should be remembered, as should all women who campaigned for women's suffrage in the early 20th Century. The place where she made her stand should carry her name so that her sacrifice will always be remembered

UK coroner Sir Robert Owen, under pressure from Foreign Secretary William Hague, has said a legal inquest will exclude material implicating either Russia's state agencies or the UK security services. Seven years after the death of her husband, Marina Litvinenko is no closer to knowing the truth about his death. This is a travesty of justice at the heart of Westminster and a disgrace to the people of Britain. Many other lives were also put at risk - in London, Moscow and Hamburg and on planes and vehicles in which the Polonium was transported. The public deserves an answer too. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22579463 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague?INTCMP=SRCH

In the light of the current legislation which aims to claw money back from social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit if their accommodation has 'too many' bedrooms - it might be interesting to discover how many MPs have claimed for housing that they 'under-occupy', and which of these MPs are in favour of the bedroom tax.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

Last year, student Cait Reilly and unemployed driver Jamieson Wilson, took the Tory led coalition to task over their controversial Workfare programme arguing that it was unlawful. Three Judges found that regulations under which most of the Tory led coalition back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful. The main issue is that the Tory led coalition lost this case and they lost because they failed to provide sufficient and legal information about Workfare to job-seekers. It is estimated that 231,000 people were originally affected by their decision and had their benefits sanctioned (ie stopped). The morality of the Workfare system is not being debated here (although flaws of the system are outlined below). This petition is about the abhorrent behaviour of the Tory led coalition that followed this decision and their decision to retroactively change the law. On 19 March 2013, a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons which will change the law (that they broke) retroactively thus enabling the Tory led coalition to avoid having to repay the money that they illegally took from job-seekers - an average of £550 per person. The issue here is threefold: Firstly, the Tory led coalition (assisted by Labour and Lib Dems) are trying to retrospectively change the law to protect themselves from their own flawed policies. By retrospectively changing the law they can ensure that no law has now been broken and thereby avoid having to repay those who they illegally sanctioned. This behaviour is morally repugnant and vile and cannot be allowed to happen. Secondly, there seems to be a complete media blackout on the story and the Bill was rushed through, the day before the Budget - one may argue in an attempt to bury it? Thirdly, the Workfare scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been shown not to be an effective tool to get unemployed back in to work. The problem is there are no jobs for people and the Tory led coalition is deflecting this fact away by demonising those looking for work such as Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson. There is plenty of evidence to show that workfare claimants are replacing real jobs. Since this WP came in, many retail giants and the Royal Mail have used workfare so they don't have to offer overtime to their existing workers. Asda recently put all their part-time staff on contracts which guarantee just 4 hours work a week. Many shops are run by workfare. This whole scheme is about exploiting labour - the workfare claimants are being exploited for free labour; the existing workers are being exploited by losing hours and pay; and we are all being exploited when what we buy is making profits for corporations which are using what is effectively indentured labour. People who are fortunate enough to be paid for their work are afraid of rocking the boat lest they be replaced. These schemes guarantee a cowed and compliant workforce, paid or not, who will be reluctant to unionise and unwilling to protest in case they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, taxpayers' money is being poured by the billion into the coffers of welfare-to-work companies and corporate profiteers, and Labour seem to be OK with this in principle. These are extremely important issues and cannot be ignored.

Michael MacDonald was arrested on the night of the 16th February when he was at home alone looking after his young son. The arrest followed an incident earlier in the day when MacDonald, known by friends and colleagues as 'Don', engaged with Nick Forbes, the the Labour Council leader, in the street. 'Don' wanted to discuss with Forbes, the effects of the cuts to Newcastle's youth services, which the youth worker fears will have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable residents of the city. Don was not threatening to him. He didn't swear. He only tried to explain to Forbes, as a professional youth worker, the effects these cuts would have on the city's services. The actions taken by Forbes and the police are not what we expect of those who are meant to serve and protect the residents of Newcastle. It is important that situations involving the police as outlined above are not allowed to occur, which serve to intimidate and disturb the people of Newcastle who exercise their right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech. Although a minor offence, if charged Don would be left with a criminal record and there would a black mark against this hard-working and well respected community worker. Don was served a fixed penalty notice under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, but has returned this notice to the court and has stated his intention to fight the accusation. His arrest has serious implications for public protest and freedom of expression in Newcastle and nationally. We stand with him against this attack on the right to protest. The accusation is unjust, meant to intimidate and is preposterous. It is clear that: 1. A civil servant has used their authority to demand an arrest. 2. The police have removed a family man from his home in the middle of the night when he had sole responsibility for his six year old child, detained him for four hours on the basis of a minor charge, during which time he was encouraged to accept a fixed penalty fine for doing nothing more than exercising the rights we all have as residents of Newcastle. Initial signatories: John McDonnell MP Kate Hudson, national secretary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Jerry Hicks, Unite Grassroots Left Dot Gibson, National Secretary Pensioner Convention Bill Bowring, Haldane Society Socialist Lawyers Andrew Burgin, vice chair Coalition of Resistance

Only a full public inquiry can now get to the bottom of this story. We need to know how local and central government dealt with the Trump Organisation, what was offered by whom and when, and we need to establish why planning guidelines and environmental regulations were simply unable to protect our community and the unique environment we live in. Finally, we need to know what changes can be made so the planning system again works like it is supposed to.

The gradual withdrawal of services will eventually mean the end of local democracy as the council becomes ever more pointless and powerless. For example as part of its budget proposals Gateshead City Council is proposing reduction of branch libraries to 12 and the withdrawal of professional support for 5 libraries which may or may not continue being run by volunteers. This comes on top of massive staff cuts last year and more proposed in the future. Local government may not be perfect but it's better than a mish mash of services provided by charity or multinational companies like G4s or SERCO.