To save people on using these from having to go on extremely busy roads risking life and limb https://vimeo.com/94511111

As someone who has had to put up with noise I have been horrified by the apathy of the authorities. despite being able to hear noise from a household that was not my direct neighbor the police could not act. If you contact the council department responsible for dealing with the problem you find that you have to make a formal complaint during normal working hours which means that the culprits are notified of YOUR complaint even before the local authority bothers to collect evidence which they will then want to do. A much simpler solution is that the police are called and that they witness and deal with the problem on the spot and perhaps leave until later a return to the property to confiscate equipment used to make excessive noise. In every neighborhood there are people who have to go to work and it is unacceptable that they should have to put up with excessive noise. I personally have witnessed where a noise complaint has been made it has resulted in retaliation from the perpetrators in the form of damage to property resulting in £1000's of damage done and the victim has had to move with the police unwilling or unable to intervene and the local authority uninterested and other neighbors too worried of retaliation to offer supporting evidence. Many people do not report noise problems and suffer in silence because they FEAR retaliation which is a highly realistic risk.

Full stripes have been an Albion tradition for over 100 years but the apparent design will render them almost invisible. The change of design has been introduced witjhout consultation with supporters, most of whom seem to be opposed to the new look. Football support should be about heritage and identity not just marketing gimmicks to try to make new merchandising opportunities. * Petitioners will refuse to buy new shirt designs and associated merchandise.

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

The number 30 bus from Richmond to Keld in North Yorkshire is very important to me as it is my lifeline. Living in a rural area, independence is very important for me but following cuts by North Yorkshire County Council my bus service has been withdrawn completely meaning a loss of independence which in turn has triggered a return of severe depression and anxiety. I travel by bus regularly for my dentist,doctors and psychiatric appointments all of which are over 9 miles away. I am now no longer able to go shopping and do any kind of leisure pursuits with my son as I am unable to get a connection from Richmond to travel by train should I wish to do so. My son who also uses the bus has now had to stop drama classes as he can no longer get home in the evening. The loss of this service is having a detrimental impact on my state of mind and well-being and we feel our right to public transport has been taken away leaving us in total isolation. Richmond our nearest town is over 20 miles away. I cannot drive and I am unable to afford a taxi or costs of other transport as I live on a limited budget. Having to move away from this area would have a devastating impact on my mental health as I would have to leave my job, where my employers are totally supportive of my mental illness, my home where my landladies are also supportive of my mental illness. Many other people in the surrounding areas have also been badly affected. Both the Government and local council must understand that cutting bus services to make short term savings has hugely detrimental effects on people. Upper Swaledale also gets a lot of tourists and walkers along the Coast 2 Coast path and Pennine Way during the year who also use the bus services. Cutting off access to the countryside means that businesses and the tourist industry will also suffer. Please sign my petition to Leader of North Yorkshire County Council: Councillor John Weighell calling for them to think again and reinstate the number 30 bus service between Richmond to Keld.

Cumbria is the second largest county in England covering 2632 square miles, therefore it is extremely challenging for an Ambulance Service to provide excellent clinical care in a timely manner. As part of a cost saving plan the management of our Ambulance Service are proposing to reduce night time cover by a third in Carlisle, Cumbrias only city. They are also reducing the night time provision provided by a Rapid Response Car in the town of Penrith which is manned by a Paramedic some 16 miles south of Carlisle. This will have a detrimental impact on patient care & safety as a reduction in resources will mean that patients may have to wait even longer than they do now on some occassions. It will affect not only residents in Carlisle but most probably all of North Cumbria as Ambulances that cover outlying rural towns & villages are pulled into Carlisle to respond to the proposed shortfall in resource. Cumbria is a unique county and as such cannot and should not suffer any detriment in the provision of patient care provided by the Ambulance Service just because of its size. We are campaigning to keep the Ambulance resources that we currently provide for our patients within Cumbria. To make these cuts will have an impact on patients and could ultimately cost lives. Please support our campaign

There is a suggestion that the BBC may be being used to promulgate propaganda in this affair, may not be unbiased or may be being coerced or influenced to serve one particular agenda. This suggestion should be investigated and BBC conduct explored in the light of their charter.

Just like on the popular TV programme 'The Secret Millionaire', I would like to see the wealthy obliged to spend just a few days per year with under privileged families who live on the breadline. If the families of people who actually live on the meagre salaries paid by these wealthy people were chosen then the exercise would be all the more poignant. The rich would have the opportunity to see that the poor often work much harder than they do.....and that not all people have the support, education, connections or the love in their lives needed to enable them to climb the ladder in our society. I believe that there are very few people in the world that are worth salaries in the hundreds of thousands yet many people are lucky enough to enjoy that sort of income -18 000 people now earn over £1 million per year in the UK and over 1000 people are worth over £65 million.......footballer Gareth Bale earns in one week what the average person in the UK earns in ten years - surely some obligation should come with that. Whilst a fairer tax system is essential, simply imposing higher taxes using the socialist model does risk driving people, innovation and investment out of our country. On the other hand, capitalism as it stands has created obscene extremes of wealth with no responsibility attached. I believe that giving the rich a social obligation to spend just a few days a year living with or volunteering in poor communities would have an incredibly cathartic effect. It could promote compassion, generosity, altruism, mutual learning and hopefully philanthropism. This would help rich people to truly earn what they earn. It is our right to demand that those who posess most of the wealth in our country give something back and make an effort to understand the lives of the huge proportion of our society who work for next to nothing. This is not simply about redistribution of wealth but about bridging divides and having a more compassionate society and hence a more generous society. The wealthy can only fully appreciate how difficult life is on the minimum wage, or less, by diving into that life to see it for themselves. Any communion of disperate parts of our society can only be a good thing and is in fact essential. This is not about stunting capitalism but about responsible capitalism and the responsibility that comes with wealth and power.

The Teignbridge Local Plan which has just been adopted, has a policy to allocate 2000 new houses in the Matford area of Exminster Parish and a further 500 houses in the adjoining Alphington part of Exeter. This is a total of 2500 new houses which will generate 5750 new residents. There is currently a Draft Development Framework for SWE1 and SWE3 out for for consultation with an end date of 23rd May. It is very important that Teignbridge District Council ensure that the proposed mitigation to encourage the residents of the new development to use the new Ridge Top Park for recreation and dog walking rather than visit The Exe Estuary SPA, is put in place before any development starts. Exminster has already had one bird habitat destroyed when the Cirl bunting habitat on NHS land at Hillcrest was deliberately sprayed with weed killer to destroy the crops sown by the RSPB for the Cirl Buntings winter feed. The hedges and hedgerows were then cut back severely to remove the habitat where the Cirl Buntings lived. This happened last November when Planning Consultants were assessing Hillcrest for possible housing development in the future. The Exe Estuary, which includes the RSPB Exminster Marshes Reserve, is now at risk. Studies such as The Exe Disturbance Study clearly show that the increased number of people using the area for recreation and dog walking is already impacting on the birds and their habitat. Teignbridge District Council has carried out Assessments under The Habitats Directive. They concluded that the SWE1 development is part of an in combination effect of around 12,400 houses in Teignbridge and this together with further 12,000 houses in Exeter and 15,000 houses in East Devon making a total of 39,400 houses over 20 years generating an additional 90,000 people will have a Likely Significant Effect on The Exe Estuary SPA. The provision of a 70 hectare Ridge Top Park (SWE3) as a Suitable Alternative Green Space (SANGS) as well as other proposed mitigation measures are needed to mitigate this. The Exe Estuary was designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) in 1992. It is an internationally important site and is also designated as a Ramsar Site, European Marine Site and Site of Special Scientific interest (SSSI). It is a relatively small estuary but one which supports and sustains a wide range of designated habitats and species. The Exe Estuary also qualifies under Article 4.1 of The Birds Directive by supporting overwintering populations of Avocet (being one of only three SPAs classified for non breeding Avocets) and the Slavonian Grebe. The Exe Estuary also qualifies under Article 4.2 of The Birds Directive by supporting overwintering populations of migratory species and as a site supporting an internationally important assemblage of birds. More than 20,000 wintering waterfowl are found here including Black Tailed Godwit, Dunlin, Lapwing, Grey Plover, Oystercatcher, Red Breasted Merganser, Wigeon and Dark Bellied Brent Goose. There is potential harm if development near to The Exe Estuary goes ahead without appropriate mitigation in place, to the ongoing ability of The Exe Estuary to support and sustain its designated habitat and species. The Exe Estuary is a particularly small Estuary meaning that there is potentially little space for PEOPLE and BIRDS. The Bird Habitats of The Exe Estuary must be prevented from further harm. Teignbridge District Council, as the competent authority, has a duty to ensure the protection of sites such as The Exe Estuary which is classified for its habitats and species of European importance. Please help us to make sure they do by signing the Petition.

Firstly, MS is incurable and progressive. Drug treatment is already a postcode lottery across different NHS areas/hospitals. Drugs which keep us as active, mobile and employable are of huge benefit to patients and to society. Neurologists report very good results from Fampyra and Sativex. Currently, patients with the help of the Neurologists are able to try Fampyra for 4 weeks, but are told thereafter that they must pay £2,500 approx if they wish to continue treatment. Cost-effectiveness includes use of long term drug treatments to stem, as far as possible, the relapses and disease progression of this illness. To ask MS patients to pay for drugs which may enable them to move about more freely (and continue in employment if applicable) is to create a two-tier service for those with this illness. Secondly, the prospect of MS patients not being able to access specialist MS Neurologists is outrageous. The proposals (1.4 - Regular Review) make clear that non-specialist professionals could carry out reviews with patients. Consider a cancer patient being told to have reviews of their illness/progression/treatment plans with their GP rather than an Oncologist specialising in their particular kind of cancer. It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? Yet MS patients are facing that scenario if these proposals are enacted. The brain is the most complex living organism known to Man and Womankind. Diseases of the brain are little enough understood, without the prospect of non-specialists being involved in reviews, treatment plans etc. Say no to these draft proposals. The consultation period ends on 10 June 2014. Please support this campaign and those of us with MS, their loved ones, their Neurologists, their employers. We need your help.

Currently people who receive benefits are being indirectly taxed if they also receive an Occupational Pension. This is simply not right. Pensions are there to provide for people not to be a subsidy for governments to renege on their commitments to assist people on Benefits/Low Wages etc.. If the threshold of pension(s) received is less than the benefit then people should be allowed to keep that benefit intact and the pension. Otherwise why would people want to take out pensions if they are to lose them when they need them the most. This government consistently says it's declaring war on benefit cheats. They themselves are the ones cheating. It's simply time to do right. At a time when they are fighting to stop the 'Robin Hood Tax' from being levied it is time that the government let up on people existing on benefits & showed some common sense. They want us to have pensions yet when we do they want to take them back again.

As I near retirement I realise that my body cannot physically do the things I could do only a few years ago. The mind is willing but the body is weak. This is despite me performing an office based role for my career. I believe it to be socially unacceptable for this government to expect citizens to perform heavy manual labour for their living beyond the age of 65. To expect people in these job sectors to work beyond the age of 65 will impact on their long term health and life expectancy.