More time is needed to ensure proper laws are discussed and agreed. We do not live in a policed state... Maybe there is law firm out there that would take on a mass case of legal challenges by the public to force telecoms companies to destroy the data now and thereby force the government into proper dialogue with people they are representing!

Children should be protected from everyone especially from those who believe they will never be caught or convicted.

As UK and EU citizens, and human beings, we can not accept this. We call on David Cameron to immediately reverse the UK's stance. If we do not do this then how can the UK or the EU pretend to be democratic communities? If you are an EU citizen and you care about Human Rights, please sign this petition. Links: http://seedfreedom.in/un-to-outlaw-corporations-human-rights-abuses/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/eu-aims-to-scuttle-treaty-on-human-rights-abuses/

If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate. This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government. This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion. There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!) No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions. It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.

Much of the violence in the middle-east is the result of western imperialism during and since the cold war. This conflict is no different. Military intervention will only make things worse. Those fleeing the conflict need our help. If we really care for the global community, we should do all we can for them.

A recent petition against the closure of Sure Start children's centres containing 6,000 signatures was insufficient to trigger a debate in full Council. This stifled debate and thus undermined democracy. 1500 signatures should be sufficient evidence of widespread public feeling on any given issue and therefore should be enough to trigger a debate in full Council.

On Monday 23rd June, a peaceful protest by members of Sheffield Disabled People Against The Cuts and Barnsley Retirees Action Group was broken up by British Transport police. The protesters were taking part in the Freedom Ride, a long-running protest against cuts to free travel provision in South Yorkshire. Witnesses report that the police used heavy handed tactics. One witness, Jen Dunstan, of Sheffield Disabled People Against the Cuts, said: “Dozens of elderly and disabled people have been left with bruising. Some have cuts where their skin has broken from being pushed and shoved. “A placid and calm gentleman was roughly manhandled. I am angry and shocked. The police are meant to protect elderly people.” A journalist from the Sheffield Star was present, and tried to video events on his phone. He was ordered to erase footage he’d recorded on his phone because he did not have permission to film on private property inside Sheffield station. When he initially resisted the request and continued to film, he says he was told he could be arrested under terror laws. A statement from Northern Rail said: “Members of the media must have written permission from the train operator which manages the station before undertaking any filming on station property. Under no circumstances are Northern Rail employees to be filmed without prior agreement from the Northern Rail press office.” Fortunately, other witnesses were able to video the behaviour of the police on Northern Rail's property. The treatment of the elderly gentleman can be seen here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svv9YcyZ6Os&list=UUiZU8ySSrpSg-qhR3BsYSSQ Many people who view this video will think that this treatment is disproportionate for an old man accused of fare-dodging, especially when he is taking part in a legitimate peaceful protest. In the video, five burly police officers are pinning the elderly gentleman down so that he cannot move, despite no visible signs of protest or resistance from him. It is not within the rights of Northern Rail, or any other organisation, to try to ban filming on their premises, when that filming clearly shows a questionable activity taking place with the collusion of that organisation. It is anti-democratic to try to silence the press in this way. Please sign this petition to force Northern Rail to retract their statement, and issue an apology that recognises the right of journalists and the public to film wherever they wish when a breach of a person's rights is taking place.

For the future of our democracy, to enable & encourage more people to partake in elections ,

by putting Andy Coulson in place as communications director against advice and in light of Coulson's being found guilty of phone hacking that caused untold misery to people, David Cameron has shown he cannot be trusted to run the country and cannot command the confidence of parliament or the people of the UK. he must go.

The publishing of these reports would allow the Scottish people to examine the results and make a more informed choice on the question of independence for Scotland.

The young must be re-engaged with Politics and this will only happen if they can participate and feel part of the system. This reform would lead to a feed up rather than feed down format. The excessive cost of 818 Lords could be considerably reduced and the 2nd House would be elected. The Prime Minister would be directly elected by the whole country and he would select his own cabinet. The concerns of the electorate would be better served by Regionally Elected Mp's who would be in closer contact with the electorate.

There has been a 37% rise in the amount of people sleeping rough since your government took power; 50000 families were accepted as homeless by their local authority in 2012/13 and the average life expectancy of a homeless person is 47. These statistics sicken us. Show us you feel the same by outlawing these new deterrents to homeless people finding somewhere to sleep when they have nowhere else to go. We do not believe the removal of these spikes will stop homelessness, anymore than their installation will stop homelessness, but it may convince us that you and your government are not anti-homeless people.