The proposals were developed in consultation with the local community, prioritising feedback from rough sleepers at the group's weekly Love Kitchen. Love Activists hope to gather 1250 signatures to force the council to debate the proposals at a full council meeting. Reasoning/Rationale: 1. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that when local authorities make vulnerability assessments, a 'homeless person' should be compared with an 'ordinary person who is at risk of becoming homeless'. There is no doubt that any homeless person is 'significantly more vulnerable' than an ordinary person, therefore everybody living on the street should be assessed as being in priority need. The judgement also made it clear that while councils are often under huge financial strain, this must not be used as an excuse for avoiding their legal duties. To guarantee duty of care and legal obligations are met, all local authorities must provide permanent housing for anybody living on the streets. 2. Housing first pilot project had a 70% success rate in Brighton & Hove - helping 7 out of 10 people with high support needs into accommodation. 3. Extended winter provision: additional services provided over a period of time e.g. every night from November to March. If the material resources exist to provide shelter from a severe weather emergency, economic arguments against keeping the shelters open are not as powerful as the humanitarian ones for opening them. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') Humanitarian Response: SWEP should be applied responsibly to prevent death at all times; 3 consecutive nights at zero or below is the minimum requirement. Local authorities should consider factors such as wet weather and wind chill, snow coverage and duration of extreme weather when looking at provision. Preventing deaths on the streets is the aim of the protocol, so if this demands more beds and a longer response the local authority should do everything it can to prevent harm to individuals. Economics cannot change the weather any more than economics can determine people's relative vulnerability to each other. 4. It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. Severely windy, wet weather is an emergency, as is extremely hot, dry weather. Homeless Link offers advice and guidance to BHT, St Mungo's and Brighton & Hove City Council. Currently their minimum definition of severe weather is when the temperature drops below zero for three consecutive nights. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') There is no strict definition of what counts as ‘severe weather’. Local authorities should proactively identify any weather that could increase the risk of serious harm to people sleeping rough and put measures in place to minimise this. This includes extreme cold, wind and rain. It is important not to presume when, or in what form, severe weather will occur. Sleeping rough is never comfortable, but the suffering is exacerbated by all elements It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. ('Homeless Link') http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Winter%20provision%20guidance%202015-16.pdf 5. If this doesn't happen there will be no truly affordable places to live and more people will inevitably become homeless. 6. This would make use of empty properties, keep people safe and avoid waste of tax payers money, private money and time spent on security, policing and court costs. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') In addition to the direct risk associated with severe weather, local authorities should work alongside other local statutory and voluntary services to identify and mitigate actions taken during severe weather that can increase risk for those sleeping rough. For example, people may choose to sleep in riskier places, such as in bins, where they can find cover. They may also enter buildings or property illegally, or increase their substance use as a coping mechanism. 7. No single authority can successfully move to implement all of these measures, because if they 'move first', their service capacity would risk being overwhelmed by people migrating to that local authority. Therefore, we must work towards implementing these measures nationally. [email protected] twitter.com/loveactivists_ facebook.com/loveactivistsbrighton

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

The 567% increase in fees payable to the Care Quality Commission for Primary Care registration will financially cripple many Primary Care Providers and will negatively impact upon service provision. Practices could find themselves in a position where they are closing branch surgeries in order to move down a bracket in the fee structure, i.e. pay less fees for one site rather than two. This will adversely affect the quality of care we provide, as practices will have no option but to cut services and personnel in order to meet the extortionate fee currently being suggested. Such an action would be damaging to the patient/doctor relationship and would discriminate against patients with disabilities/those unable to travel to other branch sites. This would conflict with the CQC commitment to ensure “that people receive safe, effective, compassionate and high quality care”. We respectfully request a review of the Primary Care Registration Fees structure, as we do not feel that a rise in fees of 567% is justified in any way.

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email [email protected] with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

It is important to the economy and confidence in Sierra Leone that British Airways reinstates flights to Sierra Leone. When the Ebola crisis hit Sierra Leone major airlines stopped flights. This led to the loss of thousands of jobs. It is now 10 days since Sierra Leone was declared Ebola free but British Airways have yet to re start flight http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/destinations/freetown/flights-to-freetown?clickpage=destinations-en--africa--index&kmtag=c&ban=||ACC|1|LNK15|||||CampID||||L2||||||| S/Leone in talks over London-Freetown flights Par KC/as/APACréé le 2015-11-23 16:22:17 The authorities in Sierra Leone are reportedly in talks for a new flight linking their capital Freetown and London as repeated requests for British Airways (BA) to resumes its services remain fruitless. BA first suspended its flights to Freetown on August 2014, claiming fears of a possible transmission of the Ebola virus. That followed reports of cases where the disease was reported in foreign countries through air travel. However, over two weeks after Sierra Leone was declared free of the virus, the airline is reluctant to resume flights to the country. The new flight in the pipeline, according to the pro-government Torchlight newspaper in Freetown, which on Monday criticized the British government over BA`s continued reluctance, will be provided by Kevin McPhilips Travels. About seven airlines subsequently suspended flights to Freetown during the peak of the epidemic, but almost all of them, with the exception of BA, have since resumed flying to Freetown. BA has been a major concern because it was the only one linking directly the two cities. “Sierra Leoneans felt abandoned by the former colonial masters when even an attempt by Gambia Bird Airlines to resume direct flights was met with stiff rejection from the British government,” the Torchlight said in its Monday editorial. The paper said if all goes as planned, the new airline is scheduled to commence flight between Lungi International Airport in Freetown and Gatwick in London in December. But, Tony Rogers, who in February 2015 worked at the British-built Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Center in Freetown, finds the suspension of the flights as an “unjust” attempt at isolating the country. Rogers therefore set up an online petition on the site 38 Degrees. “I understand that there has been an enormous economic impact of loss of tourism and commercial trade by the airlines such as British Airways. “I understand that some airlines have returned but British Airways remains sadly reticent regarding reinstating flights,” the UK nurse told APA in an emailed statement. KC/as/APA - APANEWS

People who "contracted out" will receive less than the new full basic pension from April 2016. The Government claims they paid less into the system during their contracted out years and that money will give them a private pension. This is unfair in several ways. Annuities are so low that some people will receive less Private pension provision than the amount being deducted by the DWP. Many of those who contracted out were forced to do so by their employers, but the understanding at the time was that it would not affect their basic final pension. Many have paid more years of NI than is required - 18 years in my case. I paid 11 more years than the seven when I was contracted out. Yet my pension will be reduced because, according to the DWP "I paid in less so I will receive less." This is unfair and untrue. The DWP refuses to allow those who contracted out to make up the difference now in order to receive the new basic pension.

Over 50 farmers have now lost their farms to Acorn Finance. It is described as Fraud in Parliament - see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141111/halltext/141111h0001.htm Please see what happened to Mr Atkinson of Birks Farm, Cumbria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-32326704

It appears that the Government are attempting to make a two tier system that will benefit some more than others. They want existing pensioners to contribute a set amount to top up their pension if they wish to bring it in line with the new rate. This is a ridiculous scenario which has not been properly thought through and will create a situation where some will feel very let down.

Having a job and earning a decent wage is a necessity if we as a society are going to address some of the biggest concerns facing our generation. Poverty has a devastating effect on families across Scotland and in-work poverty has no place in the 21st century. There is no excuse for low-pay, when time and time again it has been shown to be not only an ineffective means of employment, but also a hindrance on long-term sustainable economic growth. Low wages result in poorer services, higher staff turnover, increased absences from work and a lower quality of life for staff stuck in low pay. We have not only an opportunity, but a responsibility, to tackle poverty and eradicate the blight it puts on people’s lives once and for all. Addressing low pay will not put an end to hardship overnight, as it is only part of a much wider and more complex picture of social justice, but it is a start, and it should be our goal to achieve it.

Other countries are using this fund to support their steel industries. Here’s a giant pot of money into which Whitehall should dip its fingers. Please do. Jobs, communities and a vital industry should be supported.

Because in rural areas in Suffolk we pay about 3p more per litre. We are the ones that have to use our cars as we have no village shop or local garage no pub as they have all closed down.

As above it will mean higher payments for students and could put off future students attending uni. Is it not illegal to change the terms and conditions of a loan after it has been taken out?