In June, the Greater Cambridge area voted clearly to stay in the European Union. The European Union is essential to Cambridge's economy.

It creates fear, anxiety, distress and an exacerbation of a disabled persons conditions. If somebody has to travel out of area for an assessment it may cause the individual pain, anxiety, panic attacks and other symptoms of their illnesses. People have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. It is not the individuals fault that they are sick and need to rely on the state for financial support. Many people with disabilities have worked and been active members of society. Illness can happen to any of us. People are human with feelings and should not be made to feel humiliated and undeserving whilst attending assessments. An empathetic nature is vital when carrying out health assessments. Nearly all disabled people want to continue working, Nobody wants to struggle financially, have their independence taken away and experience life changing illnesses. The assessors need to be aware of this. It's important to ensure that if somebody is suffering from a mental health illness they are assessed by somebody that works in the Mental health field. If somebody has Parkinsons Disease they need to be assessed by somebody who works in Neurology. An assessor can not understand and individuals needs if they have no knowledge of the illness. Claimants have been unable to attend their assessments because it has been too far to travel. This must be taken into account . It's obvious that if somebody is in a wheelchair it's going to be difficult for them or if somebody is agoraphobic getting to an assessment centre may be impossible. Claimants should not be sanctioned if they have a genuine reason for not being able to turn up. There should be a complete overhaul of the way assessments are devised, dealt with and carried out by Atos and DWP. Disabled people are committing suicide because of the way they have been treated by this organisation the number of which is being hidden from the public. The true statistics should be published

No one sees the amount of training and commitment Mo Farah puts into his preparation. He loves this country and is proud to be British. We have seen over the years Olympic Rowers and Cyclists get knighthoods so why not Athletes. I know there are lots of people out there that would love to see Mo get the recognition he deserves so come on Britain or the rest of the world show you care and add your signature

For four months, during the high season there are frequent two mile tailbacks with traffic crawling in first gear and when there are accidents - which are unfortunately way too frequent - the whole of Fort William grinds to a halt for hours on end. This is having a terrible effect on the local economy and on tourism. It could easily be rectified with the addition of an alternative route to Caol. If money can be found to build a second road bridge over the mighty Forth then surely money can be found to build a bridge over the humble River Lochy.

Get the Duke of Westminster to pay 40% death duties on the £9 Billion he has just inherited from his father ( the late Duke of Westminster) This will be approx £3.6 BILLION at the curent rate of 40% It will show that the law is the law, rich or poor

During a time of rapidly increasing tension and violence in North Birmingham in 2011 Tariq agreed to speak to the crowds despite having very recently lost his son in the violence: "Basically I lost my son," he told the crowd. "Blacks, Asians, whites - we all live in the same community. Why do we have to kill one another? "What started these riots? And what's escalated? Why are we doing this? I lost my son. Step forward if you want to lose your sons. "Otherwise calm down and go home."

This £93 million has to be found from other tax sources and where by robbing Peter to pay Paul, the government will make cuts elsewhere. That might be funding taken from the NHS or reduced social payments that affects everybody and the poor respectfully.

a) EXTEND CLAUSE 12 TO COVER GROUPS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS When Sun columnist Katie Hopkins referred to asylum seekers and migrants as ‘cockroaches’, ‘a swarm’, ‘a plague’ a ‘virus’ ; ‘vagrants’ ‘feral humans’ - who if they did reach our shores turned our towns into ‘festering sores’”, she did not in any way breach Press Organisation standards, according to the IPSO ruling, which was again defended by its chief executive Matt Tee a few days ago. “In terms of the Editors’ Code, there wasn’t anything that could lead to a successful complaint against that column.” he said in his statement. And that’s because the Code is inadequate. In its ruling, this Press self-regulatory body said it could not even CONSIDER the complaints under the element of its Editors' Code of Practice dealing with discrimination, (Clause 12) as, although this “specifically prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals” its terms “do not restrict publications’ commentary on GROUPS OR CATEGORIES OF people”. (Emphasis mine) But on those terms therefore, the IPSO Code of Practice would allow publications to use similarly vile language, about the disabled, about any racial or religious group, about people of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, just so long as the comment referred to the group as a whole, and not to any specific individual. At present, under the section headed Discrimination, the IPSO Code states : i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. We suggest that the words “or group’s” simply be added, between the words “individual’s” and “race” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following publication of Hopkins' column, other newspaper columnists expressed their horror at her remarks, more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for her to be fired, and the High Commissioner of the United Nations expressed his deep concern. GENEVA “. . . in the wake of a recent article in the Sun newspaper calling migrants “cockroaches,” the UN Human Rights Chief . . urged the U.K. authorities, media and regulatory bodies to take steps to curb incitement to hatred by British tabloid newspapers” UK LAWS dealing with hate crimes and hate speech, DO outlaw expressions of hatred against ‘groups’ of people (see below). And they state that a person is guilty of an offence if by his/her actions “(s)he intends to stir up . . . hatred, or . . hatred is likely to be stirred up. “ The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all say “ . . hatred means hatred against a group of persons . . . (defined by reference to race, religion, or sexual orientation.) Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a crime is considered to be ‘aggravated’ if the offence is motivated by [general] “hostility towards persons . . “ (plural) - who have a disability. Surely the wording of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, with reference to discrimination, should at the very least then, reflect the current standard of UK law. _______________________________________________________ Concern about free speech Of course there could be and should be concern, and continuous debate, about free speech, but the Code already insists that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to “infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevent publications in the public interest. “ Nevertheless, it also says that this should be balanced with respect for the rights of the individual. ______________________________________________________________________ b) Urging IPSO to better ENFORCE its “Editors’ Code of Practise” Even as it stands, in HAVING a clause about discrimination, IPSO presumably intends to promote an atmosphere of treating with respect and dignity, (even if not making them immune to criticism), individuals belonging to those groups which the law deems to be in need of particular protection in this area. And its Code of Practice states “it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit “ Even if migrants and asylum seekers do not constitute an identifiable racial or religious group, (part of Matt Tee’s defence about IPSO’s ruling ) it is difficult to see how they would not be included within the SPIRIT OF a Code which says “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion . . “ , within the spirit of a Code which seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, and which affords particular consideration for those experiencing personal grief or shock. It may be too late to get a better ruling on The Sun/Katie Hopkins case, but the Press must regulate itself against allowing a proliferation of such hateful language about human beings in its publications, by extending its Editors’ Code of Practice in the way suggested, and by better enforcing the Code. That is, if its claim that it “sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press . . .have undertaken to maintain” – is to mean anything at all.

Imagine the nuclear bombs in our country went off, leaving our nation a wasteland and we had to flee to mainland Europe or Africa, should they turn us away because we're refugees? Because we're of another faith or skin colour? Would other nations letting us die be okay? Chances are you said, no, so how is it okay for us to let thousands of people die every day trying to escape war. War that we created. They're trying to escape the IS, they're trying to escape the bombs that France, America and We drop on them. We need to do more. These are human beings and we are letting them die.

The public have the right to know whether Margaret Thatcher used her influence to secure a construction contract for her son. Clive Whitmore, Mrs Thatcher’s principal private secretary from 1979 to 1982, is quoted as saying in his book: “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity.” The i Newspaper recently reported - Mark's files 'to stay secret until 2053' Downing Street files relating to the controversial business dealings of Sir Mark Thatcher in 1984 have not been released under official 20-year rules. Why, what is there to hide? It's not as if national security is threatened.

His final and lasting recommendations (including an award for his wife's stylist!) reek of croneyism and will only serve to diminish any reverence for, or belief in, the Honours System. It is time for a thorough review of the rules and practices governing these matters.

George Osborne developed and implemented one of the most devastating economic policies in modern history. Not only was the programme a disaster for the poorest Britons, his "austerity" economic policy was based on a lie. The policies he developed could not be supported by any sound economic theories and time and time again these policies were proven to be a disaster for the poorest people in the UK. The economic research used to push forward his programme was proven to be false as early as 2010. As a direct result millions of people in the UK were forced into a volunteer work scheme where they were forced to work up to 30 hours a week for free. This allowed large companies to benefit from free labour and increase their profits. The scheme collapsed after six months due to the public outcry. When Osborne became chancellor of the exchequer there were just over 61,000 people in the UK using food banks. After 6 years of his disastrous austerity programme there are now over a million Britons who rely on food banks to survive. The "bedroom tax" and other cuts to benefits lead to an increase in poverty amongst disabled people and the austerity measures undoubtedly had a bigger impact on women and the poorest of households. The austerity programme was hastily abandoned by Theresa May's government but the disastrous impacts will be seen for decades to come. The austerity programme implemented by Osborne pushed more Britons into poverty. Osborne should not receive any awards for making millions of people worse off.