Self employed people generally work over 50 hours a week - many work considerably longer hours. They get no job security or holiday allowance. Their salary is not paid if they are sick and yet they contribute hugely to the nation's wealth. Many self employed people manage all aspects of their business from the PR, to office admin, to ensuring that they keep up to date with H&S, keeping accounts etc as well as delivering the core nature of their business. A three monthly submission process of tax return would create an unacceptably huge administrative burden on self employed people. It would stifle our collective ability to deliver our core business. It would discourage entrepreneurialism. In terms of the arts and third sector self-employment - it would add further administrative duress to an already ailing and underfunded landscape.

The IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, and many financial experts are warning of a new global financial crash far worse than 2008, caused by the same forces: the unbridled speculation in derivatives, and outright criminal activity, of City of London and Wall Street megabanks. Under current policy and legislation, government bailouts and “bail-ins” (the confiscation of assets and even individual bank deposits to prop up failing banks) will be used to attempt to save the financial system yet again. The City of London and Wall Street Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) banks have received US$19 trillion in bailouts since 2008, even as brutal austerity has been applied in the UK, USA and other nations. The TBTF banks are now 40% larger than in 2008. They remain heavily invested in derivatives, the world trading centre for which is London. Derivatives, such as the infamous mortgage-backed securities at the heart of the 2008 crash, now total US$1.2 quadrillion, compared with a global GDP of only US$50 trillion. While not lending to the real economy, the London/Wall Street banks have engaged in drug money laundering, financing terrorism, tax evasion, mortgage fraud and outright theft from their customers, for which they have been fined tens of billions of dollars. The UK’s National Crime Agency reported in May 2015, “We assess that hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year.” Late 2016 stress tests conducted by the Bank of England showed that the major UK banks are woefully undercapitalised. Their derivatives holdings, aptly termed by Business Insider “unexploded nuclear bombs nestling deep in the financial system”, dwarf their assets (lending) and deposits. In the inevitable next crisis, major banks would likely collapse, triggering a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system. The UK Parliament passed the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. It, however, merely provided for “ring-fencing”—separating “investment” and commercial banking within each bank, but, unlike Glass-Steagall, allowing them to remain under the same roof and be done by the same company. This “solution” was denounced by knowledgeable members of both the House of Commons and Lords as simply window dressing which would allow the present, wildly speculative practices of the TBTF to continue. Why full Glass-Steagall separation? The USA’s 1933 Glass-Steagall Act strictly separated deposit-taking commercial banks from the “investment” banks whose wild speculation had caused the Great Depression. Glass-Steagall operated for 66 years and made systemic banking crises impossible. But the City of London’s 1986 “Big Bang” financial deregulation, followed by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, which both London and Wall Street had demanded, led to the 2008 crash. Support for full-scale Glass-Steagall is non-partisan: In the USA, both the Democratic and Republican Parties adopted it in their 2016 platforms, and the AFL-CIO (the central labour federation) has endorsed it. In the UK, 445 MPs and Lords from all parties voted for it in 2013, many of them warning that ring-fencing would not work. The late Labour MP and former cabinet member Michael Meacher said, “It must be obvious to everyone that this device [ring-fencing] will be breached in no time by regulatory arbitrage in the City of London where all the big banks employ armies of lawyers and accountants for just this purpose.” Conservative MP Sir Peter Tapsell, a former member of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and “Father of the House of Commons” until he retired in 2015, said, “What I mean by a complete return to Glass-Steagall is that we should have none of this nonsense of ring-fencing, which used to be called Chinese walls. It never works. Chinese walls turned out to be papier-mâché. I worked in the City for 40 years and I promise Members that it is impossible to make that work.” He was echoed by Lord Nigel Lawson, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer had supervised the “Big Bang”, but in the 2013 debate and ever since has acknowledged that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a dreadful mistake. In the Guardian of 11 August 2015, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell wrote that “the Corbyn campaign is advocating a fundamental reform of our economic system”, to “include the introduction of an effective regulatory regime for our banks and financial sector”, and “a full-blown Glass-Steagall system to separate day-to-day and investment banking” (emphasis added). Only an aroused, mobilised population can ensure that Glass-Steagall is adopted now, before the TBTF banks crash.

The Royal Family have never yet undertaken a state visit to Israel. Now is the worst time to start, with the apartheid system in Israel becoming ever more entrenched and Palestinians (and other ethnic groups) suffering more and more. This visit would be to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, and I'd point out that that Declaration included the commitment that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. This is an approach which Israel has signally failed to adopt. Many ordinary people deplore the actions of the Israeli state and actively pursue a non-violent course of boycotting the country. That's the most effective peaceful weapon that ordinary people have. Please stand with us on this cause, and against a violent and prejudiced state. The support of the Royal family would mean a lot.

The library belongs to everybody and we do not consent to the Council selling it off or leasing it for use as a private hotel. Our library is more than books. It’s part of our community’s stories, connections, routines, traditions and heritage. Although the Council is suffering from funding cuts, dismantling our heritage and our community piece by piece for the sake of short-term gains is not the answer. We are concerned that the Council is giving undue priority to the potential developer, Sichaun Guodong Group, and failing to properly consider the people of Sheffield, who own the building, and make itself accountable to them. Furthermore, it is our view that the Council’s actions since November 2016, relating to the proposed sale or lease and redevelopment of the Central Library building, have not met the required standards of transparency and openness. We have seen no firm plans or funding propositions for an alternative central library if the purpose built Art Deco library building which was gifted to the city by JG Graves is turned into a hotel. If the council is as cash-strapped as it says, how can it fund a new fit-for-purpose building? And how will it protect and maintain the Graves Gallery and Library Theatre, currently housed in the library building? Our city deserves better than this. We ask Sheffield City Council to: 1. Refrain from signing the proposed 12-month exclusivity agreement with Sichaun Guodong Group (SG), which would block all other potential investment in the library for 12 months, or any other agreement for the sale or lease and redevelopment of the Central Library building 2. Properly consider the alternatives A feasibility study is essential to make sure any actions taken are transparently in the best interests of the people of Sheffield. The Council is in discussions with only one potential developer of the library building, which has not been put on the market. If a private development is truly in the best interests of Sheffield, SCLAG maintains that the building must be marketed openly to ensure best value for Sheffield. 3. Give us evidence of best practice due diligence. In June 2016, The Council agreed Heads of Terms with SG regarding investments in Sheffield, including the proposed hotel project. In November 2016, the Council took the decision to enter into a 12-month exclusivity agreement with the company, to enable project evaluation. We want guarantees from the Council that best practice due diligence has been undertaken, regarding both SG itself and the proposed hotel development, as a basis for entering into these agreements. 4. Allow enough time for proper evaluation and scrutiny The Council now hopes to develop the June 2016 Heads of Terms agreements with SG into full legal agreements, apparently before the expiration of the 12-month exclusivity agreement (which we believe has yet to be signed). Proper evaluation of alternatives and project scrutiny will require more time (18 months for a feasibility study, according to the Council). SCLAG maintains that a longer timeframe is essential to best serve the interests of the people of Sheffield, not just the developer. 5. Guarantee permanent fit-for-purpose Central Library services The Council has not made provision for a new, permanent Central Library building prior to closure of the existing building, and an ‘interim solution’ has been mooted. There is, therefore, the clear risk that a ‘temporary’ solution will become a permanent one. 6. Provide maximum project transparency The Council advises that a ‘formal approach’ was received by SG, leading to the Heads of Terms agreements of June 2016. Neither the content of the ‘formal approach’ nor the agreement has been made public. Already at this early stage, the Council has been unable to provide a consistent or definite answer to whether or not it has signed an exclusivity agreement with SG. To enable full public scrutiny, SCLAG seeks the maximum permissible transparency from the Council regarding the approach from, negotiations with and agreements with SG, as well as project plans, procedures and timeframes. Sheffield Central Library Action Group is a platform for concerned citizens who oppose the sale or lease and redevelopment of the JG Graves Library building in the city centre.

British Airways are punishing Cabin Crew for taking part in legal Industrial Action. Cabin Crew are striking over poverty pay and fighting to earn a decent, living wage. British Airways have banned The Marie Curie daffodil charity symbol because they associate the colour yellow with Strikes!

FutureTech is an excellent provision for the children of Warrington who believed in and chose a completely different approach to learning. It's unique selling point was small numbers, small class sizes and work experience. Numbers for the school may be low but the grass roots difference that it is and has made to those attending is imperative for our town. Plus the intake number was originally set at 200 (changed to 300) and currently has 187 students. Some (NOT ALL) of the children there did not engage in the schools that they have left, for a myriad of reasons but under FutureTechs tuition and guidance have engage with education again and gained confidence and self worth beyond measure. These kids will now be left to find new school placements (often to places that will not offer the subjects they are taking now) and will be disrupted right in the middle of their preparation for their GCSE's.

Sixteen and seventeen-year-olds are the future of our society, so we believe that they deserve a say in this future. Voting is a right, and we don't believe that there is a strong enough case to deny this right to sixteen-year-olds. Sixteen-year-olds can already do so many of the things that adults can. They can work, pay taxes, start a family, and join the military. However, they do not have any say in the rights that they have in this job, how much they pay in tax, what those taxes go to, how the government treats their family, or what that military fights for. Rights are things that are given, and only taken away when there is a strong enough case to do so. When it comes to voting, and when it comes to sixteen-year-olds, we do not believe that there is a strong enough case to deny the right to vote to sixteen-year-olds. For these main reasons (and many more!) we believe that sixteen-year-olds, should have, and need to have the vote.

I am a disabled UK tax payer that had nothing to do with the state of the UKs finances and myself and every over disabled person in the UK can't be punished anymore.

On 29th March, Citizens UK will be holding a public debate for the West Midlands mayoral election, where they want their 1,000 delegates to be able to meet the potential mayors. But - the 1,000 delegates aren't being allowed to meet the Green Party, Ukip or Lib Dem candidates - they are only inviting Labour and the Tories! The BBC found this shocking and hard to understand, and featured the issue on BBC WM this week. It is accepted by broadcasters in the UK now that Ukip, the Green Party and the Lib Dems are all major political parties and they have been invited to every debate in this campaign so far - dozens of them - with the one exception of the Citizens UK event. In an ironic twist, Citizens UK even used James Burn (Green Party) and Beverley Nielsen (Lib Dems) as part of the advertising for their event held on 19th November 2016. Originally Citizens UK actually invited Liberal Democrat candidate Beverley Nielsen, but after the Green Party complained to their board about unfairly being excluded, Citizens UK outrageously *withdrew* their invitation to the Lib Dems, as if somehow that was better! This is an incredibly wrong-headed way to handle being called out for being undemocratic. Citizens UK are claiming their event is not a debate, but a "private event" that the public can't come to. This simply isn't true. Tickets to this "private event" are freely available to the public - get yours here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/west-midlands-citizens-mayoral-assembly-2017-tickets-30131646566 And even if it were a "private event", surely a grass-roots organisation who claims to champion democracy and equality, that welcomes diversity and speaks up for the most disadvantaged should be inviting all the candidates, not just the establishment, white middle-aged men. To exclude the only woman, the only candidate from the Black Country and the only young candidate, is bizarre at best. If you support democracy, please sign this petition. Citizens UK: please live up to the ideals you claim you stand for.

NHS bosses in Bedford are drawing up plans to cut and close local services. The plan is short on detail -but there’s a £311m funding gap for Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire and Luton. The plan outlines proposed major changes to specialist hospital care in order to ensure those services are 'financially sustainable'. It looks like big changes are on the table. Cuts and closures aren’t the only option. If the government gave the NHS the money it needs, it’d mean decisions like these could be made with patients in mind, rather than saving money. We're calling on our MP, Richard Fuller, to stand up for the NHS in Bedford. So far, it doesn’t look like he’s said much. But if thousands of us sign a petition asking him to demand the NHS gets more funding, it’ll show him that he needs to speak out.

NHS bosses in Lewes are drawing up plans to cut and close local services. The plan is short on detail - but there’s a £864m funding gap for Sussex and East Surrey. The plan is short of important detail on how it'll close the funding gap without cuts or closures to services. But it looks like big changes are on the table. Cuts and closures aren’t the only option. If the government gave the NHS the money it needs, it’d mean decisions like these could be made with patients in mind, rather than saving money. We're calling on our MP, Maria Caulfield, to stand up for the NHS in Lewes. So far, it doesn’t look like she’s said much. But if thousands of us sign a petition asking her to demand the NHS gets more funding, it’ll show her that she needs to speak out.

NHS bosses in Thurrock are drawing up plans to cut and close local services. The plan is short on detail - but there’s a £630m funding gap across Mid and South Essex. Three hospitals and potentially two of the area's A and E’s could lose services. It looks like big changes are on the table. Cuts and closures aren’t the only option. If the government gave the NHS the money it needs, it’d mean decisions like these could be made with patients in mind, rather than saving money. We're calling on our MP, Jackie Doyle-Price, to stand up for the NHS in Thurrock. So far, it doesn’t look like she’s said much. But if thousands of us sign a petition asking her to demand the NHS gets more funding, it’ll show her that she needs to speak out.