We need to change the unjust laws that are causing us so much suffering. We are an advantage to the UK, but we have to wait too many years for an answer to our asylum claims. We are not allowed to work in the meantime and have to survive on £5 a day. Many of us become ill, physically and mentally.

The permission was granted by the Forest of Dean District Council for their ownership, but the Monmouthshire Council have been making excuses for the last few years since the original proposal. All over the UK county after county's citizens have been benefiting from these valuable resources for leisure and transport purposes. Why are we waiting and consistently fobbed off with trivial excuses all the time? There are no cycle paths through Chepstow while everywhere else benefits. Despite all the Bills, Papers, and Consultations you pass and now 'The Wales we Want' campaign, we are ignored. This path would enable less able bodied people to access the beauty of the Wye Valley, it would provide business and opportunities locally, and hold these opportunities within Chepstow and surrounding villages where presently people go further afield for leisure facilities. Also it would encourage forms of sustainable transport such as cycling and walking, enabling many people to leave their cars at home. The already established paths in the UK are used by thousands everyday for multiple purpose. Why are we denied this resource, is it because our Council is blind to the future?

In 2014 and 2013 the reported cost of policing this group was £1million in Brighton alone. There were 27 arrests during the 2014 march, and several violent clashes bringing injury to bystanders and destruction to property. The Marchers and EDL members often stay in town once the march is over and create an atmosphere of intimidation, often resulting in further violence. It is clear that the people of Brighton do not want the March to take place, and make their presence known along the route. Free speech is important in our country, nobody wants to deny peaceful protest no matter how abhorrent the opinions of the protesters are to us. But when a protest consistently brings violence, stands for racism, hatred of minorities and scapegoating, AND costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to police, it's time to put an end to it. They are disturbing the peace and inciting hatred, and we want to stop them marching through our town. To show how serious this cause is, I include a link to a short video. This shows one of the mass street fights which occurred during the march, which police were powerless to prevent. WARNING contains violent scenes. http://youtu.be/uU8TnvCgBqQ

ACV listing is rare in Brent. Only two buildings have achieved this status: Queensbury Pub, and Kensal Rise Library. Both are located in areas undergoing 'gentrification' and they have been purchased by private developers who are seeking to strip or demolish the current structures in order to convert to residential use. Achieving ACV listing is no small feat, an application must demonstrate that the building has recently been used by the community, and that it has the ability to continue to be used by the community. Both the Queensbury and Kensal Rise Library met these strict criteria, but because they are situated in areas of rising property values their listing, and their very existence, is under threat. Hundreds of pubs and libraries in the UK have closed in the last several years, and many have looked to ACV listing as a way to protect much loved facilities. ACV should provide a network of support once achieved, but if Brent does not stand behind their listed properties, it will set a terrible precedent that will jepordise these two historic structures and make other ACV listings much more vulnerable as well. We need to protect our community spaces, because a society without places to congregate, isn't a society at all. Please stand with us to protect our community assets, and keep the private profiteers at bay. Active planning application Kensal Rise Library: Pending https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&st=PL&reference=115466 Historic planning application Queensbury: Refused https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=101150&reference=114018&st=PL ACV info: http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/legal-updates/assets-of-community-value http://mycommunityrights.org.uk/case-studies/assets-community-value-planning/ ACV example: Angel Hotel, in Spinkhill https://www.dropbox.com/s/1hi5guldg3gfwc3/ACV%20pub%20decision%20Jan2014.pdf ACV example: The Ivy House in Nunhead https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhmicd356vuvusj/ACV%20to%20revive%20a%20local%20pub.pdf Rising property prices in Brent: http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/brent_witnesses_the_highest_hike_in_house_prices_in_london_1_3520425?usurv=skip

The lack of a pedestrian crossing of any description concerns me and other residents/parents greatly. As I said above, this is a main school route for parents walking their children to the local Infant and junior schools. As a househusband, I also walk my 6 and 9 year old to these schools every day. I designed a simple petition and collected nearly 200 signatures requesting the council to install an official pedestrian controlled crossing. I sent the petition off a long time ago, and have had numerous emails and telephone calls to, and from various people at Portsmouth City Council, local MP’s, local councillors and both head teachers, all supporting myself and other residents for our wish to see a crossing installed, but so far nothing has been done. At a recent council meeting, I was informed that there had been a cut in funding, and although my proposal for a crossing wasn’t dismissed outright, I quote from an email from the council that;- “this scheme has been put forward and we will await confirmation of the 2014/15 LTP programme early next year after proposals are taken to Cabinet. This usually occurs annually around March. After scheme submission, officers have little involvement and await feedback from senior managers early next year.” On a relevant issue, my son's friend got knocked over on Havant Road a few years ago, albeit at the pedestrian crossing near the small Tescos and Post Office further along Havant Road. Yet this simply reiterates the need for an official crossing, proving that this road is a busy thoroughfare, and accidents can happen even when there are pedestrian crossing installed. So to avoid another accident, there must be a pedestrian controlled crossing installed.

The Frank James Memorial Hospital in East Cowes, Isle of Wight is a Grade 2 Listed building built and designed by famous architects John Thomas Micklethwaite and Summers Clark in 1893. The cherished and local landmark was originally a Seamans's Mission and later in 1903, under the patronage of Princess Beatrice became a local cottage hospital and remained so untill it was closed in 2002 and sold by the NHS. Since then it has remained empty and derelict and is now at serious risk of being lost after a decade or failed attempts of conversion work and vandalism.

It will support and encourage the UK for growth and evolution on the skateboarding culture as well as tourism for these events.

If this boycott goes ahead, it will mean that many third year students will suffer delays to their graduations, as well the very real possibility that they could miss out on places in graduate schemes, Masters etc. Previous attempts at striking about pay have failed. They are willing to go without pay as they have done before in order to prove their seriousness. Our lecturers do not wish to hinder our advancements but it is something that they feel is necessary in order to achieve their goal of fair pay, and students support them in this. However it's the students that will suffer the most if this goes ahead. You and this University have the ability to end that suffering. Please try and negotiate. Thank You.

We as a local support group from South Tyneside have been campaigning since 2006, because a Diabetes pandemic has been predicted by professionals and we need to be prepared for this. As it stands Diabetes sufferers have to attend regular check ups e.g. Eye and Foot screening, Blood tests, podiatry and annual reviews at GP's surgery or hospital, at the moment these appointments are held at various locations and ideally would be much better to be done under one roof especially for the elderly or children who need public transport to attend each of these very important services.

If you have any feelings whatsoever for animals and the manner in which they end their lives as food for us, then you will care for their wellbeing.

Too many people are getting dogs and seeing them as possessions or "money makers" by over breeding them for some easy cash or using the as "status dogs" using them to fight. When a dog is so cheap to buy, people are buying them then realizing they didn't want one in the first place. People are getting dogs free from people and selling them on. They are now treated as something with no value, as easy as if they were selling a mobile phone. This leads to unwanted dogs clogging up the kennels taking up time and money because of irresponsible owners. By making everyone licence their dog, this would weed out people who actually care and love their dogs. By having a breeding licence with vet check and behavioral expert, this will stamp out deformities caused through inbreeding and stop the aggressive gene passing on to the next generation, thus reducing the risk dramatically of "dangerous dogs". It is very important for the BSL to be banned as no dog should be targeted and killed because of what breed it is. You wouldn't go and jail or kill all murderers children because of what their parents did... so why do it to a dog? It can't help that it was born and there is no proof to say that dog will grow up aggressive. This should be abolished and every dog tested separately and treated as individual cases. If you really wanted to stop dangerous dogs and the suffering of dogs happening all across the UK, there is no excuse. Act now and stop the suffering!

This is important because the General Public of the UK are not being given a fair and accurate picture of the clear failure of the WP to provide what the public are paying for through their taxes. People are not fully aware of the "sanctioning regime", seemingly endorsed by the DWP Provider Guidance Notes and the detrimental impact it is having on the health and well being of many of the most vulnerable people in society. These tactics are actually creating barriers to work, rather than removing them. People should be aware that the DWP Provider Guidance is constantly being updated to strip the unemployed of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also being used as a license to cut welfare expenditure by providing more avenues and extra guidance on how to issue more sanctions against WP participants. There is more information contained within the DWP Provider Guidance relevant to sanctioning people correctly, than there is information relative to helping people back into suitable full time employment. Where are our priorities? For too long now, our government has discredited the unemployed in the UK, creating a negative stereotype for everyone on benefits, including those who are doing their utmost to find work with very little support from this Work Programme. Two contentions are being widely overlooked here: a) Jobseeker's allowance is a taxable income b) No person would be able to claim anything from the welfare/benefit safety net, if they could not prove on a regular basis that they are doing everything they can to find suitable full time employment From reading the DWP Statistics, this is what they should say: 1.41 million people have partaken in the work programme 16.6% managed to find work regardless of whether this work was found through the WP or not 22,000 people – that’s 1.5% - managed to stay in employment long enough for the WP provider to claim the maximum amount of job sustainment payments. 219,000 people, roughly 15% have returned to the Jobcentre still looking for work after being on the Work Programme for over 104 weeks. [source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-programme-statistical-summary-december-2013] It is clear from interpretation of the evidence that the success rate has been approximately 1.5%. The ‘corollary’ is that the failure rate has been 98.5%. The DWP Provider Guidance: 8. Providers are required to present all of their customers with a leaflet explaining the Departmental position in respect of consent to contact an individual’s employer. (A fair processing notice) 9. DWP now has a designation order in place that allows the Department and Providers to contact the customer’s employer directly to validate employment details for the above benefit groups. 10. There is no longer a requirement for you to obtain customer consent to allow DWP to contact a customer’s employer or for you to contact an employer in connection with Outcome or Sustainment payments. 11. You may also share this information with the Department for Work and Pensions. [Source: Chapter 9, Work Programme Provider Guidance] This begs the question – of the 1.5% of participants that did find suitable full time employment, how many of these people found the jobs themselves, only for the WP to take the credit and get paid, even in cases where the WP provided no assistance whatsoever? This failure has come at great cost to the tax-payer, and it seems people are generally misinformed and are allowing 'celebrities' to dominate the discourse on welfare reforms, rather than listening to those of us who are already on the receiving end. No moral conscience can simply walk on by and allow the suffering of their comrades. "When a complaint is freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained, that wise men look for" (Milton, 1644) Please note that, not being experienced myself in the realms of ESA benefits, I don't feel that I qualify enough to really discuss that in much detail. But what I can say is that there was a risk highlighted by the National Audit Office upon the introduction of the Work Programme that people who the WPP's deem "easier to help back into employment" will always receive the help first. This is because the WPP's are paid on a target basis and by helping those who they deem easiest to help first, they can achieve their targets more easily and hence get paid more readily. THIS RISK IS NOT BEING MANAGED PROPERLY. The reasons the WP have provided for not managing this risk at all is that they "treat everybody equally", however in reality, this is clearly not the case and my argument is supported by the official statistics. It follows then, that if you are a person who needs extra help to find employment, unfortunately the WPP will get round to helping you last. This is disgraceful, it is unfair and it is unethical.