Every man deserves a second chance to live happy and to prosper, it is the role of government to provide the conditions that allow man to do just that. Many cases where ccj's etc have occurred is simply because, of failing governments failing to recognize that they themselves are the root cause to much of the bad debt and as a consequence of their bad decision making from all sectors, society as a whole indeed suffers. Access to credit to create wealth must be made for everyone. Not everyone is bad and many suffer as a consequence. Humankind is entitled to a better standard of living. When the government demands a significant proportion of a mans wage, there is very little left for the man to prosper. We need change and we need it now. If the government removes its stealth taxes, then perhaps man can flourish and his family prosper, this will not happen and cannot happen when every door that is knocked on is closed for you unless you have a bank balance of a million pounds. The distribution of wealth is not fairly being played as the wealth is consumed by banks that are unwilling to give credit where credit is due and if the government really want to be in touch with the common man, then it must aid the common man or forever be hated by the common man.

The Mansfield Brewery has a history dating back to 1885, however since the brand was merged with Marstons, it has faced Second Rate treatment in favour of Marstons own beers, such as Pedigree, and Hobgolbin. If this treatment is continued, then it is likely this historic brand may eventually cease to be produced and a vital part of Mansfields heritage will be gone forever. The brewery brand is an important reminiscent of a key part of Mansfields history, and deserves to live on under the Marstons brand, rather than being marginalised in favour of other Masrtons Marques.

I personally feel, rightly or wrongly, that if British Telecom were allowed to buy the 'Everything Everywhere' company, it would be like Tesco's buying Morrison's or Sky buying I.T.V. We need a competitive market place to create employment and drive consumers standards to higher grounds. The reaching long term implications of this potential sale, would have to result in job losses and if the public does not raise it's concerns about potential huge company sales such this and similar situations and attempts like it, we could be guilty of scratching our heads in 5 years time and asking ourselves "Where did all the work go?" In the last 3 years, I have found B.T. and E.E's customers standards to be poor and if they become no longer in direct competition with each other, how will their customer services ever improve? We are still recovering from a double-dip recession and the last thing the business market needs is an eventual streamlining of a big phone network. This must be stopped and it is in all of our interests to stop B.T. buying E.E. I have already contacted my M.P, Andrew Turner, about this matter and hope that others are able to find the time to contact their M.P. too.

The current campaign to get potential electors to ‘engage with’ politics fails to 'engage with' Russell Brand's insights (and with the frustration of those who care but feel impotent). The problem can be qualified very simply: 1. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not register is because they do not see the point in registering. 2. The reason why non-registered potential electors do not see the point in registering is because they do not see the point in voting. 3. The reason why non-voting potential electors do not see the point in voting is because: a. They cannot see any options which have a worthwhile chance of promoting their political preferences. b. There are never any ‘none of the above’ options. How could those who care but feel impotent express their despair, and their frustrated desire for a better process? c. Our lousy current voting processes would anyway ignore most of their votes. How could those who care but feel impotent make their votes count? Ideally, of course, all citizens in a liberal democracy would be able to express their political preferences through ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes. However, if the de-facto democratic processes are not ‘fit for purpose’, and those in power have a venal vested interest in maintaining the consequential democratic deficit, citizens have to seek first to change those ‘not fit for purpose’ democratic processes by whatever means (including high-profile ‘focussed outrage’). Where would South Africa be now if Nelson Mandela had played by the rules of apartheid? Where would India be now if Mahatma Ghandi had played by the rules of the British Empire? Where would women’s rights be now if the suffragettes had played by the rules of their menfolk? Where will the UK be in 50 years’ time if the constitutional reform movement urges us to play by the current not ‘fit for purpose’ democratic processes? Those who care but feel impotent despair when they note that nine of the eleven members of the PCRC (Political & Constitutional Reform Committee of the Westminster Parliament) are members of the two dominant ‘covert coalition’ Parties; the very Parties which benefit from the current democratic deficit. They wonder ‘why would turkeys vote for Christmas?’. Unfortunately, the constitutional reform movement currently puts forward two conflicting messages to potential electors: 1. The constitutional reform movement (rightly) informs us that the vast majority of us will/would be wasting our time and dissipating our democratic energy by registering and voting (because the lousy current voting processes will ignore most of our votes). 2. The constitutional reform movement (wrongly) urges us to register and vote (thereby wasting our time, dissipating our democratic energy, and reinforcing the venal self-serving complacency of those who oppose constitutional reform). Citizens are not fools. They will not buy the above muddled pair of conflicting messages for long. Brand was/is right in his analysis and insights. However, he failed to provide a constructive alternative. Apathy is not a constructive alternative. Not-voting is not a constructive alternative. Taking over St Paul's cathedral is not a constructive alternative. Citizens need to see a positive and constructive campaign for constitutional reform. The purpose of this campaign is: 1. To act as a ‘call to arms’ and a ‘civil disobedience challenge’ for the 'focussed outrage' with which to confront those benefiting from the lousy current voting processes (i.e. the current Conservative and Labour Parties), who would otherwise of course simply wring their hands, obfuscate and drag their feet (as they always have done). 2. To convince those in power that resistance to constitutional reform is untenable, and that they had a venal vested interest in ‘embracing’ the campaign for constitutional reform (however reluctantly) before ‘events’ overtook them. Those who wish to explore the wider context for a campaign for constitutional reform in the UK can find more detail in two working papers: 1. The working paper 'A Campaign for Constitutional Reform in the UK' provides a blueprint for such a campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWMFNOV2tZeEwwTms/view?usp=sharing 2. The working paper 'Optimising Democratic Governance' provides an in-depth exposition of the principles underlying that campaign. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B695R-_ui4mWZTFLMmFMaUREUms/view?usp=sharing

Pensioners who have made a life outside the UK's list of "Recognised Countries" are being denied their human rights to receiving their full pensions. The UK doesn't mind sending UK citizens to Thailand or other far flung countries to fight and die for them, but if god forbid any of them choose to return and live there, their pensions are either stopped or frozen without the benefit of cost of living increases. At the very beginning of our working lives, and at 10 year intervals. We should be given a list of countries we can expect NOT to receive our pensions.

National Parks are the intellectual property of the people of the UK. NO fracking company should have the right to interfere, IN ANY WAY, with the integrity of these places From the ground below to the sky above (Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos). Many parks are areas of outstanding beauty or are of special scientific interest. They are managed by National Trust, farmers, landowners, etc as well as the people who live and work within their boundaries. We must not allow private companies to benefit from the probable disruption of these habitats.

There is still much discontent over the safety of fracking, the lack of public consultation, the rights of the people of the UK in terms of the law of trespass, possible damage to property, devaluation of homes, the insurance implications that may arise for home owners if fracking goes ahead under their homes. Fracking may produce millions, if not billions, in terms of revenue and profit; if their own projections are correct, they can afford to remove the cost burden of such consultation processes from the people of the UK.

As someone who worked in the building industry for over twenty years and watched the BBC 2 documentary entitled Inside the commons. In my personal opinion The palace of Westminster would need to be closed in the near future to be refurbished as a grade 1 listed building that was built in the 1840s. This type of refurbishment would come under heritage restrictions and cost the tax payer up to 3 Billion pounds. With services like the NHS and local government in this county coming under Budgetary pressures it's called austerity. Can we really justify this immense expense of a future refurbishment of the palace of Westminster with out first giving the people of Great Britain a referendum if they agree the massive cost to the tax payer . Democracy may judge that the general public say they want MPs to do there business in another way in there constituency locality. With out the filibustering of Prime ministers question times.

Our names are part of our personal identity and are used by each of us to distinguish ourselves. Here is what we would like to say to Facebook. Dear Facebook, We would like to draw your attention to the way Facebook members have been treated regarding their names and accounts recently. Whilst we understand that Facebook has rules regarding acceptable names the recent purge is ignoring your own rules. People called “Bob” are being made to become Robert for example…. And the names we are known by in real life may not actually be those we have on legal documents. This certainly applies in my case, and in others too. We are not using the names on our facebook accounts for fraudulent, underhand or deceitful purposes so see no need for you to lock us out of our accounts and prevent us communicating with friends near and far. Please reconsider your recent actions as demanding “proper” names is causing chaos and consternation for many, many people, it is antisocial as well as heavy handed and may eventually contribute to the demise of Facebook in the future if an acceptable alternative becomes available to us We sincerely hope you will see fit to reverse your recent actions and allow us to revert to out proper account status on Facebook Thankyou in advance :-)

With Hasland having a number of parks and schools I think it's important for all traffic to be at a reasonable speed. Despite the road being signposted as a 30mph (from 40mph so not that much of a difference) there is no way cars are keeping to this. I have had cars driving ridiculously close to me and on two occasions I have nearly been run over when walking on the pavement (which is extremely narrow). Most recently today, my dog got spooked and started to run out onto the road, not far as she had a lead on, I stepped out to stop her and we were missed by an inch! What if this had been a child who had fallen or a wobbled on a bike? The pavement is neither use nor ornament being so narrow, yes there is one on the other side but crossing over is dangerous too! Please sign this petition to slow traffic down and keep Hasland safe.

The canteen employs staff, many who have worked here for many years. The canteen provides healthy and hearty food at breakfast and lunch, in a safe, friendly and accessible environment. The civic centre is also a place where residents come for a hot cooked lunch and company.

Children standing in the road, overcrowding pavements, pedestrians forced into the road, buses overhang pavement when turning. High level of risk. Children are at severe risk with no safety measures in place, Station Approach is a private road and not routinely gritted, rush hour traffic hazards, congestion. I have witnessed children being 'nudged' by the busses. The road becomes single file when the buses are picking up.