READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/debate-on-the-armed-forces-and-investigation-and-prosecution-of-historical-cases

Caroline Lucas created BASIC INCOME EDM 974. Jonathan Reynolds similarly supports basic income. John McDonnell said Labour are considering basic income. Basic income trials are set to take place in Canada, Finland, and Holland. The time is ripe for UK Parliament to debate EDM 974 BASIC INCOME. That this House notes the growing crisis of low pay and precarity in a labour market increasingly characterised by casualised forms of employment that offer little in the way of pay, predictable hours or long-term security; further notes the evident inability of our bureaucratically costly social security system, with its dependence on means-testing and often arbitrary sanctions, to provide an adequate income floor; believes that a Basic Income, an unconditional, non-withdrawable income paid to everyone, has the potential to offer genuine social security to all while boosting entrepreneurialism and the creation of small businesses; Much more on the link. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128234 And of course a thread open for those that perhaps do not know to much about Basic Income. Worth a read,in my view. Basic Income Guarantee-Do You Like The Idea-Any Views-Have Your Say. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461005-Basic-Income-Guarantee-Do-You-Like-The-Idea-Any-Views-Have-Your-Say.

On Tuesday 5 January, Mike Kane MP will propose a debate to bring in a bill to amend the Mesothelioma Act 2014. The idea is to improve access to pensions and/or compensation for veterans who suffer mesothelioma as a result of service. This discussion will be a Ten Minute Rule Motion. Watch the debate on ParliamentTV from approximately 3:30pm.

I am not in favour of stopping any debates and to allow freedom of speech. But there have been a number of threads where debates have become silly arguments. The threads then get closed after they have run their course. People are entitled to opinions, even if you don't agree with them. If you don't agree, then just post a counter argument or ignore. No point attacking someone for their opinion, as you are not likely to change their minds. I am not sure political threads should be encouraged on CAG. It is principally a consumer advice site. The Bear Garden was i think intended for general chat about interests, current affairs. There are specific internet forums that cover politics.

Hi there, My partner and I moved into a privately rented flat 2 months ago. We really get on with our landlady and are good tenants. The property is always spotless, bills are always paid on time and we really do look after our home. When we moved, we were asked by the letting agent if we had a pet. (At the time) the answer was a no. They confirmed that their 'standard' clause was 'no pets', however there is a clause that states we could have a pet with the landlord's written consent (and this can be broken at any time). I called the letting agent as my partner and I have decided that we would really like a kitten. We have both had experience in owning a pet and my other half is at home everyday (he works a couple mins away from our flat). I e-mailed our landlady to ask if it would be possible to have a kitten. Initially, she said no due to the above standard clause. I then pointed out that in black and white on the tenancy agreement, (directly underneath the 'no pets' clause, ironically), it states that if the landlord gave written consent, we could keep an animal. She then responded by saying she will speak to the Management company as this is a separate contract and will come back to me So I'm a bit annoyed, and very upset. This is HER contract and we signed the agreement which stated that we could have an animal with written consent. Landlords/Tenants, I would really appreciate your advice as to where we stand! Extra bit of info - She is coming over early next week to do an inspection, which we are not worried about in the slightest and we have agreed that we will advise her if the answer is a 'no', we will be moving as this would have affected our initial decision.

I have always paid my TV licence by quarterly direct debit. I have decided to pay now by payment card, telling them i am unemployed. Phoning them up, they tried continually to get my phone number for which i was not accommodating in that request My licence is paid up to the last day in April, they are adamant my first payment card payment has to be made on the 25 April, yet i have paid up to the end of April, so comments on that please I continued to request a full statement of account, that's payments made and dates over the last 12 months, they refused stating the system will not allow it, after continued debate on that subject, they cut me off. Are TV licence subject to the Consumer Credit Act in that you pay in installments IN BRIEF Are TV licence governed by the Consumer Credit Act in that on request they have to send a statement of account for the previous 12 months if paying by an installment plan of payments made

Good news but will it achieve anything? Just an addition. The debate should be live on the Parliament channel. Ill check and report back Michael Meacher States: January 9th, 2013 I am very pleased to announce that the elected Back-Bench Business Committee in the Commons has now arranged for a full 3-hour debate on Atos work capability assessments to take place in the main chamber (not in Westminster Hall where there has already previously been a debate on Atos) on Thursday 17 January starting shortly after 11am. I have already spoken to a large number of Members of all parties and am assured there will be a big turnout, so that people in a large number of constituencies (perhaps as many as 30) will be directly represented in the debate. I hope the speeches will cover a great many cases, though tragically there are so many hundreds of horrifying accounts flooding into MPs’ that not all of them can be specifically included.

Just a reminder that the debate about ATOS is live on TV from about 11.15 this morning.

If anyone is able to do so, it would be worth watching a "catch up " version of a speech this afternoon from the Parliament Channel as Coventry JMP Mr Jim Cunningham MP secured a Commons debate about the bailiff industry. The following is a "word" version of an article that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Coventry Telegraph that provides background..... A COVENTRY MP has secured a Commons debate tomorrow about the treatment of vulnerable people by council-hired bailiffs following a Telegraph investigation. The ten-minute rule bill scheduled for 2.30pm on Tuesday has been brought by Coventry South Labour MP Jim Cunningham, who wants the government to provide more protection for vulnerable people from inappropriate bailiff visits. Last October the Telegraph uncovered practices in Coventry including a failure by council-hired bailiffs to report vulnerable cases back to the council in line with government guidelines. We also highlighted excessive and multiple charges by bailiffs which heaped unexplained charges onto the unpaid debts of the sick and disabled for council tax or parking fines. Thirty MPs have also signed Mr Cunningham’s early day motion calling on the government and councils to ensure bailiffs adhere to the national guidelines, and regulations over charging limits. Tomorrow’s debate, which will raise the Telegraph’s findings, comes after the House of Lords last month voted against the government in calling for better regulation of the bailiff industry. The crossbench peer, Baroness Meacher, had tabled an amendment to the crime and courts bill which would allow people who feel mistreated by bailiffs to appeal to an ombudsman. Our investigation highlighted how a mother from Eastern Green on NHS suicide watch had charges heaped on to her bill, and faced repeated threats of her possessions being seized – even though we saw evidence she was paying back her parking fine debts through agreed payments. A disabled woman from Walsgrave with a stress-related condition had also agreed a payment plan by instalments, yet she received 10 threatening letters in two days demanding she paid thousands of pounds in full. Coventry Citizens’ Advice Bureau also claimed government vulnerable persons’ guidelines were being breached, including in the way the council’s hired bailiff, Newlyn Plc, handled the case of a cancer sufferer. Mr Cunningham will tomorrow raise local and national concerns, including those contained in a damning local government ombudsman’s report published last month. He is backing its recommendations, which include ensuring councils only charge fees in line with national regulations; provide clear details of their charges; make proper checks when levying vehicles; and exercise caution with potentially vulnerable debtors. Mr Cunningham said the debate would raise the profile of the issue just weeks before the Ministry of Justice is finally expected to report back on a delayed review of the bailiffs industry. He added: “I want to not only put pressure on the government to implement the recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman’s report and others, but to give a date when they will be implemented.” The council has been reviewing its bailiffs’ arrangements with Coventry CAB since the Telegraph’s investigation

I have been reading about TV Licensing recently and whether they are lawfully required or not. I have no personal objective here other than enlightenment. I DO have a linence and will contiunue to do so as I can afford it (thankfully I have a job) and I know that I would be harassed if I didn't have one. But that got me thinking....is the main reason that people buy licences because they feel that they would be committing a crime and be threatened/harassed for not having one? When I was at Uni (some time ago now!) I received all sorts of threatening letters (more and more red ink each time) despite not owning a TV or equipment capable of receiving a signal...and this was despite me notifying them of this. Reminds be of DCA threatogram tactics. Churn out 10,000 threatograms, a few will cough up = result for them. I've heard about £1000 fines being threatened, sending enforcement officers round to visit, and even prison! Some arlicles I have read (and youtube vids watched) talk about how, as the TV Licence requirement is based on the Communications Act, it is a 'Statute' and not a 'Law'(Common Law). Not having one does not cause harm or loss to another person so cannot be considered an unlawful act. The case studies suggest that one can 'remove their implied right of access' so that TVL peeps are not allowed to enter one's property and one can refuse to answer any questions to any enforcment agents (normally Capita)....and there is nothing that they can do. The key (apparently) is to avoid engaging with them in any way as they have no right to demand info and enter your property...or even demand your name. People fall foul of this when they fall for the intimidation and sign statements agreeing that they do not have a TVL despite having a TV. As we are talking about an Act/Statute, there has to be an agreement on both sides so unless you agree, they cannot enforce. Correct? or BS?!! So my question is - how does this work out in reality? If someone cancels their licence (or never has had one) will they be 'got' in the end by the TVL people and court system. Can the Police get involved? Will you go to prison? Or is the BBC/TVL hoodwinking us all and with untruths, deliberate misinterpretation of the law, intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying? And should the TVL be abolished? I came here to ask as I very much value the CAG members' opinions and views....

hi i started a thread a few days ago about defaulting on my wonga loan after alot of research on here i was advised to keep emailing them to arrange a repayment plan and not to phone. Anyways after 3 days after constantly emailing them without reply i gave in and phoned. I set up a 12 month plan in the matter of minutes got them to email the plan so i had it in writing, didnt have to explain anything no expenditure forms or anything they were quite helpful. I am sill abit wary of them trying my account to receive funds anyone had any bad experiences after setting up repayment plans? so phoning wasnt as bad as i thought. cheers