Science has not yet proven that GM food do not have a health changing impact on fauna and the environment. Neither in the USA nor in UK or Europe are consumers interested in GM modified foods. Please urge this government to stop licensing GM modified foods until science can prove, that these food will have no impact on any living beings health. Perhaps we should encourage all world citizens to stop breeding like rabbits and take birth control. Than there will be no need to destroy nature for GM foods and agriculture. Perhaps we humans could learn something from Badgers

Waitrose should not be supporting a newspaper that is so blatantly promoting hate and bigotry. Waitrose is part of the John Lewis family who are proud to be inclusive of their staff and have strong foundation in cooperative working. Promoting the Mail is fundamentally against their brand.

There is an urgent need for the Prime Minister to respond appropriately to yesterday's High Court judgement. Every PM's first responsibility, beyond any narrow party consideration, is to uphold the rule of law and defend the independence os the judiciary. Mrs May should make crystal clear , however inconvenient it may be for her, firstly that the judges responsibilty is to interpret the law and secondly that it is her rsponsibilty to work within the law. The outpouring of hate and of death threats together with the ignorant attacks on the judges represent a very real threat to peace and stability. We have already had one MP murdered. There is now a real danger that individuals who are perhaps both hot-headed and ignorant of our constitution will be led to believe that direct action is being being sactioned and is therefore justified. The stability of any society depends upon respect for the law. Politicians of all parties have a dury to come together to defend the rule of law. Mrs May's silence is an incitement to anarchy. .

The Boundary Commission for England is planning to get rid of Hove, by ripping out the Hove Park area and moving it into Brighton (a new constituency called ‘Brighton North’), then abolishing the rest of Hove as a separate entity and instead merging it into Brighton – in a new constituency called ‘Brighton Central and Hove’, where Hove gets second billing. As a result, the ancient borough of Hove, as a place in its own right, will disappear from the political map forever. Some will see this as a final nail in Hove’s coffin. And surely no-one who has lived in Hove or Brighton for more than five minutes will think it makes sense. It is, as Albion saviour Dick Knight has called it, an ill-conceived plan that fails “to recognise and understand the unique fabric of the city – two towns united as a city but happily divided by their own distinct identities.” Hove is completely distinct from Brighton – a different town with its own look and feel, architecture, society and social fabric. Chopping Hove up and then making it a junior partner of Brighton brings independent Hove to an end. It destroys Hove’s traditional, natural and deeply embedded community ties and replaces them with new, artificial ties that make no sense. Hove will no longer be Hove. This not only destroys Hove but fundamentally changes the character of the whole area. The loss of Hove threatens to undermine the social fabric of this young city, to the detriment of all. And it will be devastating to the people of Hove. So, Boundary Commission, please keep your Hands off Hove. Campaign website: http://handsoffhove.org/?hovepetition Boundary Commission’s planned map: http://bit.ly/BCEmap Boundary Commission proposals: http://bit.ly/BCEdoc1

For our society to function we need to have respect for our legal framework. The Daily Mail headline of 04 November 2016 referred to three senior judges as "Enemies of the People". It is hard to imagine a headline more contemptuous of senior judges. We believe that such contempt begins a process that could threaten the foundations of our law-abiding society. We note that the offence of sedition was abolished in 2009, and that an action for Contempt of Court is unlikely. We suggest this headline warrants an action under Section 4A or Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We consider such an action would be overwhelmingly in the public interest. ---------------- Is this campaign seeking to 'stir the pot'? No. This campaign is NOT about Brexit. Those who sign up may variously support Brexit, or Remain, or hard or soft Brexit. And this campaign is NOT designed to stifle press debate of judicial decisions. But it is about preserving something essential to Britain's future - the rule of law. What unites us is that we strongly oppose the use of inflammatory or intimidating language directed at the judiciary by the press. We believe there is an existing law that makes this illegal. And we would like that law enforced.

UK Democracy is not well served by the present system and MP's who wish to make a greater contribution to our society will have to work harder for their constituents in their 2 terms also the abolition of the 'Whip' system would increase the MPs responsibilty to reflect the opinion of their constituency as a whole .

The County Council has a legal duty to provide waste disposal free of charge for waste created in the household and through this delegated decision the Conservative leadership is ignoring its legal responsibility to the communities of Staffordshire. The Council should use its discretion to charge directed to business traders and identify these specifically to charge for waste generated from their commercial activities. These new charges have been hidden in County Council paperwork from two years ago and did not receive any meaningful public scrutiny. Further the Council took felt sufficiently concerned about their legal position that they obtained specific advice and concluded that “consultation….is not necessary.” The County Council has a duty to consider the impact of any decisions a cabinet member takes and of particular note is that they acknowledge that the charges will have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable in our community stating clearly the “…greatest impact on low income households.” They have pressed ahead regardless with this discriminatory practice. Secondly, the Council acknowledge that there could be “a small increase” in fly-tipping. We think they have underestimated the increase in fly-tipping which is costly to clean up for the District Council. The Council think that people won’t be tempted to put soil, hardcore and plasterboard in their own bins. We think residents are likely to try and avoid these charges and this will mean less recycling. The Council do not care that they anticipate “some complaints” in the short term because they believe the issue will blow over and we, the residents of Staffordshire, will continue to accept their ill-considered and flawed decision making to the detriment of communities. All quotes from http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/documents/s87805/Review%20of%20Household%20Waste%20Recycling%20Centre%20non-household%20waste.pdf

to prevent more loss of life on our roads

In view of the UN vote to ban nuclear weapons i feel it is only right that parliment has another chance to debate the need for a new nuclear weapons system.

Indycamp is not just a pro-independence camp outside of Holyrood, despite how it is portrayed in the media. It is a camp which continually educates and engages in political discussion about some of the worst social injustices we face as a society. Whether that be unregulated banking, general corruption, austerity, benefits and the vilification of benefits claimants, the NHS or for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society - it has continually brought to light some of the more severe issues we face as a society. This case is about more than just the removal of a camp, whether most people realise it or not, it is about the way in which the camp is being removed. You see, Government have used the Scotland Act to transfer public assets, namely the ground around parliament, to a private body, known as the Parliamentary Corporate Body. This body, has at its disposal the full force of parliament and government without having to justify itself to parliament. This sets a dangerous precedent, because when the SPCB took the camp to court, they did so under private law of a corporation and not law applicable to a public organisation. In otherwords, the precedent this sets, is to allow public organisations to transfer land and assets to private entities in order to usurp the public's fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom to protest your own government in a manner of your choosing should you remain peaceful. In a nutshell, it sets the precedent, that all any publicly accountable organisation need do, is transfer its assets to a corporate body and suddenly it does not have to deal with being publicly accountable. I am asking you to support the camp today, not for them, but for yourselves. It is not acceptable for assets you own as a member of the public to be transferred to a private entity. I am asking you to support the camp, because the precedent this will set will erode, not only those at the camps fundamental rights, but also yours as an individual. One day you may wake up after suffering injustice and find that you have to seek permission (like indycamp) from the people you wish to protest, and if you fail to do so, you will find yourself in court, bankrupt and destitute because you refused to ask their permission to protest them. The precedent before the court, of course being the SPCB vs Indycamp. This is not about a camp and land, it is about your fundamental human rights, which you should never have to ask for, but instead should just automatically have.

See Wikileaks -Trade in Services Agreement. This is yet another deal that gives soverignty to International business at the expence of the public. Another case where companies can sue governments if they dont get what they want. Hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for countries! The people have a voice! WE WILL BE HEARD!!!

The Bill if enacted would effectively repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012, once again make the Secretary of State for Health responsible to Parliament for the NHS, properly fund it from general taxation and end the rush for privatisation inherent in that Act. We can expect Conservative MPs with big majorities to side with the government, but many of them with small majorities may well abstain. Labour and SNP MPs could join forces to make sure the Bill goes forward. For Labour MPs in particular, this will show whether or not they truly want the 1948 NHS to be fully restored.