Because George Osborne and the cabinet are not competent in running the finances of the UK and will cause thousands of children and other families to enter poverty and will cause thousands of more crises within the UK.

Many of the working poor, sick and disabled are on a knife-edge as to whether they lose their homes, can continue working, end up in hospital, breakdown, die or commit suicide. The DWP have been fighting the figures for deaths of those found 'fit to work'. The media typically don't report the plight of the working poor or those needing benefits (in or out of work). Councils are given more and more responsibility so that their spending power looks good when they cry out about cuts. The government cuts-back the funding before handing over responsibility. Councils then have to hurt their residents. The people must be given a choice. If Greeks can do it, so can the Brits.

The bill in its current form with its definition of psychoactive substances would appear to ban things such as herbal teas, botanical substances and herbal remedies with a long standing tradition of use; for example; chammomile, valarian, lavender, st John's wort and things such as essential oils. These substances have a positive effect on human health and in many instances have proven scientific uses that lessen the need for taking toxic medications; for example sleep aids and relaxing herbal teas. The Psycoactive Substances Bill would criminalise law abiding citizens that look to alternative medicines and further remove our freedom of choice in matters of our personal health and wellbeing. Although there is an exemption for "traditional herbal remedies" once again the definition is very subjective and open to broad interpretation. The definition in the act of a psychoactive effect is as follows; "...a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state..." This extremely loose definition could apply to almost anything that a human can find enjoyment in, from a cup of herbal tea, to watching TV, to enjoying a joke with friends. At the very least these definitions need to be ammended to prevent potential future abuses of this legislation.

Deaths of our citizens in a foreign land were enough to secure a minute's silence recently. It's time the government formally acknowledge their complicity in the deaths of the sick and disabled on our own shores by the malicious manipulation and abrogation of the benefits system, when evidence made clear the policy was causing harm.

In 2012 Theresa May announced that from April 2016 non-EU migrant workers will be required to earn £35,000 to stay in the UK, even if they have lived and worked here for more than 5 years. This devastating new immigration rule must be stopped, as immigrants who have lived and worked in the UK for longer than 5 years should have the right to stay regardless of their income. We cannot allow this policy to happen, as it will split up families, jeopardise the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and severely damage the economy. The Royal college of Nursing recently announced that this policy will cost the NHS MILLIONS because so many of it's nurses are non-EU migrants who earn under £35,000 and who will be deported under this policy. Recruiting new nurses will be time consuming and expensive, and will drain more of the money needed to save the NHS. Also, the average income for a UK born citizen is £26,600, so it is entirely unfair to deport immigrants who may earn more than the average UK born citizen, but less than £35,000. Please sign the petition to hopefully prevent this devastating policy from becoming reality.

To stop the government from killing those most vulnerable in society

to get Scotland Free, so we can use the resources available to the people of Scotland to prosper, so that the days of Austerity is finished and the people can then have money in their pockets and banks to do what they want, to eat, pay bills, go holidays, spend festivals with their families

Will you help to spread the word? We're filing a massive class-action lawsuit against the British Conservative government over its hugely unpopular, unfair and destructive Austerity plan. We see it as embezzlement of public funds. We need the best lawyer's support, and we believe we CAN WIN THIS. Please, SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS via any and every means at your disposal, including but not limited to facebook, twitter, email and word-of-mouth. My email address is: [email protected] People can contact Michael Mansfield QCs Chambers directly, to tell him how much they value his support and how popular this cause is already and how it's quickly going to go viral. We want half a million petitioners, all the people who attended the June 20th march and rally to Parliament. http://www.mansfieldchambers.co.uk/contact-us/

She no longer represents the views of the electorate that voted for her. She has also behaved fraudulently with regard European Parliament expenses claims

parliamentarians have continued to violate the human rights of the people with forced austerity for the actions of the criminal bankers. the human rights of victims of parliamentary pedophile groups still at large in parliament and immune from justice. the removal of food to individuals abuses their human rights. all of the above offenses are classified as CIVIL offenses if committed by a politician and a criminal offense if committed by a member of the public. this inconsistency leaves the public with no legal aid open to any human rights violations parliament wishes. by making human rights violations criminal offenses the individual has a coarse open to justice where as now there is none. politicians can cause the death of thousands of people WITHOUT criminal offenses being taken brought against them, a terrorist kills one and we bomb a country. human rights violations should be criminal offenses to protect the people from political and economic fundamentalism of individual politicians who profess to be our representatives until called to account for their actions. james anderson.

As your constituent, I was concerned recently in the local press to hear you state “In the event of such a vote, I would vote to repeal it. In my judgement, and the judgement of others, the Act does nothing to protect wild animals and, in many cases, is actually detrimental to animal welfare when other methods of control are deployed, several of which can be indiscriminate.” what concerns me is not your statement which is based not on any research or based on facts but rather ideology but you seem to think this is a common view held by your constituents. I would also like to highlight there are many within your own political party who do not support the repeal of this law http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/ Also I would recommend you read the following report http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Publications/Hunting-Act-Report-2014.pdf I’ve seen a video about hunting that I just had to send you. One of the key arguments of those who support hunting is that it is necessary for ‘wildlife management’ – put more simply, they suggest it is good for controlling fox numbers. I really want you to watch this as it is vital to the debate about the potential repeal of the Hunting Act. A League Against Cruel Sports investigation found 16 fox cubs being kept in a barn, 200 metres from a hunt kennels. An employee of the hunt, their terrier man who is registered as living at the hunt kennels, was filmed entering the barn. Why would a hunt be keeping foxes? The only sensible conclusion is that they had been taken and kept simply to be hunted. The video shows other examples which back up this conclusion. This is not ‘wildlife management’, it is animal cruelty. The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/D7PjfphDsc0 If you would like to hear more information about Wildlife management and help dispel some of the myths from the pro hunting lobby. we will love to see our MP for a local debate on the matter. I hope you will consider this information when voting on the repeal of the Hunting Act. If you would still consider voting for repeal in light of this evidence, I’d really appreciate an explanation why? MPs are meant to be local representatives who vote according best interest of their constituents. Basingstoke is mostly a urban seat and this vote will little impact on them but our MP should at lest speak to her constituents as many would have strong views on animal welfare In the ten years since the Act was passed, it has proven to be an effective and popular piece of legislation. Yet, since its introduction, the Hunting Act has been the target of considerable attack from the pro-hunt lobby which has waged an on-going and concerted campaign of disinformation about the Act. Ministry of Justice figures demonstrate that the Hunting Act out-performs all other wild mammal legislation in England and Wales, having both the highest number of convictions since it was introduced (341 from 2005 to 2013) and conviction rate (65% of charges laid under the Act have resulted in convictions). The successful prosecution of registered hunts private prosecutions against illegal hunters. Subsequently, evidence gathered by team of professional investigators has been used to convict 18 people associated with registered hunts, with more cases still proceeding through the courts. While public support for the prohibition of hunting has always been high, it has increased substantially in the past ten years. The latest polling from Ipsos MORI, conducted in 2014 on behalf of the League, shows: 80% of people think fox hunting should remain illegal 86% think stag hunting should remain illegal and 88% think hare hunting and coursing should remain illegal Some of those pushing for repeal of the Act point out that illegal hunting still takes place. Unfortunately this is true, and like everything from drug laws to speed limits - the problem lies not with the Act, but with those who flout the law. So, ten years on, the Act is working well and with a few simple improvements in some specific areas it can be even more effective. If the law is kept it can be improved on in the future Prohibiting the use of dogs below ground - this is arguably where the worst cruelty occurs in hunting, not only to wild mammals pursued underground with limited opportunity to escape (usually foxes and badgers), but also to the dogs sent below ground to find these animals and either flush them out or hold them at bay. Inserting a ‘reckless’ provision to ensure the killing of wild mammals during a trail hunt cannot be passed off as an ‘unfortunate accident’. Increasing the punishments available to the courts so that the Act is brought in line with other animal protection legislation. Thank you for your time. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Arts Therapists provide a unique approach within mental health care. It will not only limit the therapeutic services we are able to offer to clients but also be a loss to the teams in which therapists offer perspectives in discussions, decision making and reviews. It will inevitably put more pressures on an already stretched service.