As Yorkshire Wildlife Trust’s first ever nature reserve, Askham Bog has special significance. In fact in 1946 the Trust was created with the purpose of looking after the site which was bought to save it from development. A brief summary of the issues relating to the proposals is as follows: Askham Bog supports an exceptionally high biodiversity with healthy populations of numerous nationally rare species, and the only regional populations of many others. Particular rarities include gingerbread sedge carex elongata (largest population in England), numerous water beetles and the fen square-spot moth diarsia florida. Askham Bog has been recognised as an exceptional habitat for two centuries. It is highly valued both by the population of York and by a national and international community of naturalists and ecologists. Just two miles from the city centre it offers a peaceful place to walk and enjoy nature. The importance of the site is entirely dependent on the integrity of the local water table and it is exceptionally sensitive to any disturbance of that. We are concerned that these housing proposals will irreversibly damage the hydrology of Askham Bog and its special interest will be lost. There has been no information presented to indicate that this will not be the case. We are also concerned about the huge increase in recreational access on to the reserve. There is highly likely to be unmanaged access from a range of locations, particularly from dog walkers and young people. Whilst we welcome large numbers of people on to many of our sites, Askham Bog is too small and fragile to cope with this high volume of unregulated access. We therefore consider that the site should not be allocated for development and that doing so would result in significant loss of the important wildlife features of the site. This allocation is therefore contrary to the Council’s own policies regarding the protection of biodiversity and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. http://www.ywt.org.uk/news/2014/06/12/help-save-york%E2%80%99s-wildlife http://www.ywt.org.uk/York

David Ross is being lined up as the new Chair of OFSTED. This is wrong - he is a Tory donor and the founder of a chain of academies - the very schools that will be inspected by OFSTED - this is a huge conflict of interest. How is it possible to keep State Education out of politics when this kind of back door cronyism is happening? OFSTED should be about improving the education of our children and nothing else.

As a person entitled to the Higher rate care componant, I receive an 'allowance' towards my own additional costs, but not the additional costs I have to pay for the care of my children. This is yet another example of society forgetting that disabled people can be parents too.

The government is now consulting on reducing funding by 30% - consultation closes on 19 June 2014. The UK has produced some of the world's finest musicians and composers which are supported by millions of people in this country. All our children deserve the opportunity to learn an instrument and/or sing in a choir. Music education can improve numeracy, literacy and social interaction (as demonstrated brilliantly by the El Sistema programme in Venezuela).

Our local precinct in Accrington often plays host to a man who carries his life's possessions in a large rucksack and two M&S bags. Standing there in his burst slippers he declaims himself a messenger from god sent to rescue us from the cesspool of our morals. He is an example of (Don't) care in the community. I see so many parallels but Gove is better dressed... * "Mice and Men", "Islamic Trojan Horses" and others * Micromanagement, Term Time Holidays * Fight people and shadows outside his department So many signs... Perhaps it is too late to send for Matron. He may need a time-out and perhaps counselling. It would be a win-win situation in that teachers, and the rest of the UK could take a breath, take stock and be worry free for a while. I ask the nation to chip in. Please show you care.

Is life itself not important ? If so you need to vote for this

Immoral! Not acceptable! Making money from this action. It's not their info to share, is it? "Access to the data of more than a million teenagers and students and thousands of their parents is being sold to advertisers such as mobile phone and energy drinks companies by Ucas, the university applications body. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service received more than £12m last year in return for sending targeted advertising to subscribers as young as 16." Have a read of this for further details: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/12/ucas-sells-marketing-access-student-data-advertisers More on David Willetts here: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-willetts

To engage and inform Society, both young and old, of Politics, the power of Democracy, how this can be used, misused, and the impact that Policies have upon the daily life of all.

These centres provide crucial universal and targeted support for parents, carers and young children. This withdrawal of funding will cause irreparable damage to the service, increase risk and vulnerability across the county, and mark a reversal of the 'Every Child Matters' agenda which is striving to eradicate inequality for under 5’s.

We have recently seen a huge discrepancy in pay rises between university bosses and university lecturers. For example Dominic Shellard at De Montfort University received an 11.6% rise while his lecturing staff received a 1% rise. Keith Burnett at Sheffield University received a 29% rise while his lecturing staff received a 1% rise. Edward Acton at the University of East Anglia received an increase of 8.6% while his staff received an increase of 1% and John Last at Norwich University of the Arts received a 13% pay increase while his staff received an increase of 1%. The national average for Russel Group Vice Chancellors pay increase is reportedly 7.8% while university lecturers are receiving a 1% rise this year and a real terms pay cut of 13% since 2008. The success of each university is a joint effort of all staff, Lecturers and Vice Chancellors alike, and no singular staff member should take credit for the hard work of everyone involved and be the sole recipient of large pay increases. Two excellent examples of camaraderie are Paul Curran of City University London and Simon Gaskell from of Queen Mary University London, the latter spurned a rise of £50,000, which will now fund five scholarships. Unfortunately voluntary rejections of inappropriate rises in salaries like this are rare. References: Dominic Shellard, http://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/about-dmu-documents/board-of-governors/dmu-annual-accounts-2012-2013.pdf Keith Burnett, http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/fury-at-105000-pay-rise-for-sheffield-university-boss-sir-keith-burnett-after-he-refused-to-raise-employees-salaries-to-the-living-wage-9084027.html Edward Acton and John Last http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/inflation_busting_pay_rises_for_bosses_of_university_of_east_anglia_and_norwich_university_of_the_arts_1_3195023 Paul Curran & Simon Gaskell http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/vice-chancellors-reject-pay-rise/2009824.article

You are not seemingly acting in the best interest of children in childcare if you bulldoze your ideas through without any thought of the impact on small business and the children they care for. You wonder why there is a downfall in people wanting to become childminders? Well is it any surprise when you are going out of your way to try to put them out of business and make life so difficult with paperwork? Perhaps you should be looking at the real reasons there will be a shortfall in childcare professionals!

We depend on the quality of young people's education being sustained to give them and us a secure future. I taught for many years in a much-praised Sixth Form College, where I saw thousands of students being given opportunities to improve their lives. The college, like many others, offers a much broader range of subjects than most schools can, but some of these subjects are now being lost. Staff are highly experienced in teaching their subjects at 'A' Level, as they only teach 16-18 year olds, so students usually perform to the best of their abilities. You say that you want all institutions to be excellent, so why spoil successful State-funded ones?