Tax credits are used to boost the wages of low income workers and act as a vital lifeline for many working families struggling to make ends meet. My daughter is a junior doctor with a two year-old and a disabled partner. Child care is so expensive, so she has to work part time, and rent is so high, so her family rely on tax credits. It's absurd that a young junior doctor and her family should face poverty because of the withdrawal of tax credits. And that's exactly what's happening under the current government. My daughter’s family is beleaguered on all fronts. This is the kind of hard-working family that the Tories talk about and the kind that society wants. So why the punishment? It's going to mean that they can't buy shoes for their two-year old, or food, it's as bad as that. I can see a scenario where they'll be going to their local food bank, and that just doesn't make sense, that you can work so hard and be faced with going to a food bank. I wonder how the public would feel if the doctor treating them for a heart attack had been queuing for a food bank earlier that day? She's doing life-saving work with all the extra stress of poverty.

David Cameron pledged before the election that tax credits were "not going to fall". However, George Osborne's welfare reforms have included tax credit cuts that effectively act as a work penalty; punishing hard-working lower-income families. Both the Treasury select committee and the Work and Pensions select committee have requested a full impact assessment from the Government, yet Cameron and Osborne have attempted to brush the effects of their cuts under the carpet by only setting out the impact on income for families already in receipt of tax credits. We need analysis of the impact on income that the tax credit cuts will have on the population as a whole, not just those already in receipt of tax credits, so that we can see the true, devastating effects of these welfare reforms.

For many women reaching sixty was within sight when the state pension age was raised. The nearer they got the further away it was moved. Some women have been robbed of six even seven years pension, thousands of pounds, without a murmur of protest but now the reality of continuing to work has hit hard and for many this is a step too far.

Glasgow has lost so much of its architectural heritage and we cannot afford to loose anymore or we will simply not be an attractive tourist spot for those from other European countries where the architecture is preserved to a larger state. This development of student housing could be built anywhere in the city, could it not be moved into the former City of Glasgow College building a few yards away that is up for sale? This area of Glasgow close to Townhead and Cowcaddens has virtually no heritage remaining and this former church is one of the only beautiful buildings remaining in this area. Please keep this vital part of our heritage for the next generations of Glaswegians to enjoy!

Scientists working for ExxonMobil had suspicions about the existence of climate change in the 1970s, and by the early 1980s they had conducted research projects, validated their theories and concluded that man-made climate change was real and would raise global temperatures by between two to three degrees. Evidence suggests that ExxonMobil continued to fund the work of climate sceptics as late as 2009, and possibly beyond, which is after the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. Rather than alert the world to these facts, Exxon Mobil used this knowledge to increase their profits, whilst also setting up and funding various organisations to deny the existence of climate change. Exxon Mobil's policy of aggressive climate change denial has caused irreversible damage to the environment. As the mandate of the International Criminal Court is to try individuals rather than corporations, we ask the ICC to charge all individuals at ExxonMobil who conspired to cover up the existence of climate change with crimes against humanity. We believe that ExxonMobil's actions constitute an inhumane act which has intentionally caused great suffering. We want the ICC to take this action both in order to hold ExxonMobil to account for their actions, and to prevent other corporations from taking similar actions in the future. It needs to be established that large scale destruction or pollution of the environment, whether intentional or through negligence, will constitute a crime against humanity, and that individuals responsible for such crimes will be pursued by the ICC.

In this time of austerity, cuts and financial difficulty for some of the poorest in society, we need a strong opposition to Tory policies. A minority of Labour MPs cannot be allowed to divide the party on such important votes which will affect millions of people.

This behaviour is not only disrespectful and disruptive of proceedings (setting the worst example to the country and giving a terrible impression abroad), but it is used to bully and intimidate legitimate questioning of the PM by our elected representatives and shows contempt for the citizens of the country. There can be no justification for it and it must be stopped - the House of Commons is NOT a school debating society.

Every year one in five children in this country leave primary school clinically obese and set up for a lifetime of poor health and social and psychological issues. Without action thousands more will join them. Jeremy Hunt says this is a "great scandal" and in his first speech after being reappointed Health Secretary following the general election he said "It is something we cannot say that we accept". But far from leading the charge to improve the health of our children, our Health Secretary is sitting on the findings of a crucial review from Public Health England into reducing sugar consumption. 18 months ago Hunt asked Action on Sugar for a plan to prevent childhood obesity. With the help of their global experts they provided a plan with just seven actions but so far Hunt has done nothing. The government promised a child obesity strategy this year. The clock is ticking and every day more of the youngest and most vulnerable children tip the scales into clinical obesity. Sign this petition and together we can force Jeremy Hunt to publish the Public Health England review, respond to the plan presented by Action on Sugar and finally take action on childhood obesity.

Reducing the number of people parking on the embankment will help to reduce the number of cars passing through and make the area a safer more enjoyable place for people to enjoy. Many of those people parking in the area, abuse the facility simply to avoid parking charges faced elsewhere as part of their commute to work. The Victoria Embankment in Nottingham has been given to the citizens of Nottingham and the locality for their mental and physical health & well-being. This breathing space is one of the most beautiful spots in the city; an oasis of serenity where people can escape from the hustle and bustle of traffic, of noise and of everyday life. This highly protected Covenanted Land, which has been gifted to the City, should be a place for people to visit for relaxation, recreation and enjoyment rather than another built-up car park amongst the urban sprawl. The embankment hosts many amazing events including the Riverbank Festival, The Robin Hood Marathon, Cycle Live and the Caribbean carnival parade amongst many others. These fantastic events are enjoyed by thousands of people from all over the region and demonstrate just how beneficial a space such as this can be when cars are no longer the number one priority. The benefits to mental and physical health, the bringing together of communities and the knock on economic effects are incalculable. The City Council has invested millions in a new tram route, has an award winning bus network, provides excellent park and ride facilities, as well as an accessible cycle hire scheme which has been free throughout the summer. Despite continued investment in sustainable and active travel options, many people still choose to use cars to travel into work and to destinations like this despite the financial burden, inconvenience caused by traffic congestion and knock effects to their health – not to mention issues with localised air pollution and greenhouse gases. The city council cannot rely on incentives along and has to crack down on those individuals who abuse local facilities, which are there to be enjoyed by local residents and people.

It is important for people to not confuse the UK's minimum wage with the LIVING WAGE. The minimum wage SHOULD be a living wage.. but it is not. The 'National Minimum Wage' will still be far lower than the LIVING WAGE when it is raised by the government in 2016, yet it is being re-branded as though it is a living wage. The living wage has been researched for many years and exists to highlight what people actually need to be paid in order to have a better standard of living. The Proposed 'National Living Wage' is not a living wage! Especially when working people will face tax credit cuts next year.

As these contracts run for up to 35 years, the tax payer is held to pay up. As most hospitals are funded this way, we will be left with vast payments to private companies who built (at 4x the cost) and run (at over inflated costs eg £900 to change a light bulb) and the actual care to patients will (and is suffering) to for fill these payments. The Net is littered with examples of its continued us in government: e.g. http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2013/08/17/new-staffordshire-fire-stations-are-waste-of-public-cash/

The NHS will soon be on its knees. By having the BBC work for the NHS it will help boost the budget of the service that needs to be top of our preservation and improvement list. I am deliberately making this is a brief note because the simple ideas are the best and I do not want to be watering it down by long-winded explanations. In short, get the BBC working for the NHS.