We believe that this is a necessary course of action in order to attract investment and economic benefit back to Hereford. The state of Herefordshire also discourages potential investors and tourism alike from visiting the County, this is potentially an economic disaster for Hereford.

North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust is the largest ambulance service in the country covering 5,400 square miles and serving a population of more than seven million people. It is already extremely challenging for an ambulance service to provide excellent response and clinical care in a timely manner. As part of a cost improvement plan the Trust Board and Management is proposing to reduce day and night time cover across the whole of the North West. This action without doubt will have a detrimental impact on patient care and safety as a reduction in resources will mean that patients may have to wait longer than they do now on some occasions. It will affect residents from Carlisle to Crewe. The proposed cuts in resources will mean that Ambulances that cover outlying rural towns and villages will be pulled into urban areas to respond to 999 calls. The public everywhere will have a lower level of service whether they live in large urban areas, towns or villages. The North West Ambulance Service is a unique service with its mixture of large urban cities and vast rural areas. The North West 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 the North West. To make these cuts will have an impact on patients and could ultimately cost lives. Please support our campaign

In a location such as a Wetherby it is of paramount importance that a fire appliance is available at all possible times within the normal operating parameters of a Fire Brigade. This is due to the remoteness of the next nearest fire appliances, some 12-15 minutes away. It is also an abuse of the tax payers money and resources and falls short of the service standards paid for and expected by the public and businesses in the Wetherby area. Not so long ago, the then District Manager, Mick Smith, allowed a crew from Wetherby to be stood down from operational duties for over 4 hours and to travel over 22 miles out of station area. During this time the crew dismantled a boxing ring at Fire Service HQ and then traveled to the Batley frontier club to reassemble it. The reason for the absence input on official documentation was "training at FSHQ for approx. 1'5 hours" This meant that, due to this falsehood, no appliance was sent to standby at Wetherby by control staff and this left the area vulnerable in the case of a fire or road traffic collision. An investigation was carried out (by the peers and colleagues!) of those responsible and no-one was found to be accountable. It was proved that the entry made in the official log was a lie to cover up the actual whereabouts of the appliance and crew. The stated reply was "We can learn lessons from this" Imagine if this had been an ambulance and crew or a police van been allowed to be used in this same way. After the investigation and result, Councillor Wilkinson was approached and when asked to comment on the incident of the inappropriate use of the appliance and crew he said that he trusted the judgement of the officers concerned as "he has known them personally for some years" ACO Barnes has also refused to hold anyone accountable and has refused to have an investigation. It was also stated that Wetherby is a "low risk area" to justify the absence. Charity is, by definition, the giving of time or money freely to aid an organisation. It is not the unilateral commandeering of an essential on duty emergency service paid by the tax payers . If you think this incident was wrong and should not be allowed to happen again then please sign this petition. I am a retired fire officer and know the importance of an early attendance in order to save lives. If this incident goes unpunished or not demonstrated against then Wetherby might lose it's fire engine altogether! Please support. Thank you in anticipation.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/child-protection-privatised

Last school holidays I took my two children on the number 14 bus to Victoria Park playground. The return fare for one adult and two children from Bear Flat was £10. That's £10 to travel about one and half miles to a local park. If a child needs to take the bus to school it costs a fortune. A weekly pass is £15.50. If two children take the bus it costs the family £31 a week. That works out at roughly £1,200 a year for two kids in term time alone. These prices are just not affordable. You responded to consumer pressure in Bristol and reduced the cost of bus travel. We are asking you to act fairly in Bath because right now most families are priced off your buses.

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

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

Sure Start Children's Centre services in Newcastle are facing a two thirds cut in funding over the next three years. This will mean closure of services, buildings, parents groups, activity for young children across the city. It will mean at least 100 jobs will be lost across the council and the voluntary sector. It will mean the opportunities for children and parents will continue to be worsened, following significant cuts already 2010, and the axing of the councils play and youth services last year. SSCCs in Newcastle are all rated Good and Outstanding by Ofsted, reach the vast majority of children under 5 and their families offering universal as well as targeted services. The council proposals:  For the three year budget cycle (2013 – 2016) - the cuts proposed equate to over £5 milllion (or approx. 65% of the total budget) The first £1 million savings have already been agreed, with a proposal for a further £1 million this year and then £3 million for the year 2015-16.   Overall the cuts since 2011 will equate to over 70% with the budget being reduced to less than £3 million from approximately £10 million in 2010-11.   The review of Sure Start and Early Years Services has now been incorporated with the Family Services Review which is being asked to cut £670,000 over the next two years out of budget of £2.3 million which is a 34% cut in services to the most vulnerable families, children and young people.   50% of these services are delivered by the council and 50% by the Community and Voluntary Sector. The city council have estimated that for the work they directly deliver this would equate to the lost of 63 full time equivalent posts (i.e. this will actually be more than 63 people losing their jobs as many jobs are part-time or may be job share) we can only estimate that the equivalent level of job cuts would be made by the Community and Voluntary sector meaning the job cuts proposed would be at least 126 full time posts (probably between 130 and 180 people losing their jobs)   The review has not identified which Sure Start Children’s Centres, Services, Buildings or staff will face cuts.   The councils review timetable includes: ·         April 2014 onwards: Options appraisal (looking with partners at what the cuts could like and coming up with proposals) ·         July 2014: Consultation on the proposed cuts and closures ·         August 2014: Partners agree which options are to be implemented ·         September 2014: Implementation of the cuts for both 2014-15 and 2015-16. ·         March 2015: All cuts implemented.   The councils proposals for 2014 – 2016: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/drupalncc.newcastle.gov.uk/files/wwwfileroot/your-council-and-democracy/budget_2014-15_-_pc_-_2_-_family_services_review_0-25_incorporating_early_years.pdf   Previous year budgets: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/budget-annual-report-and-spending/budget   Unison’s campaign page: http://unison-newcastle.org.uk/sure-start.html   Motion passed at Unison Newcastle City AGM: http://www.unison-newcastle.org.uk/assets/files/AGM2014/140210_18%20Motion%20-%20Save%20Sure%20Start.pdf

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?

Brighton and Hove is the first and only green council and yet it doesn't have any real green initiatives! There are many councils that do various schemes (vouchers, cash back etc. full list here http://www.fill-your-pants.com/councilnappyincentives.html) but Brighton does nothing. Around 8 million disposable nappies are used every day in the UK (50 million were dumped in 2007 in Leicestershire alone- the equivalent of 70,000 double- decker buses)! Most of these end up in landfill sites. It is estimated that more than 300 pounds of wood, 50 pounds of petroleum feedstocks and 20 pounds of chlorine are used to produce disposable nappies for one baby each year. For every £1 spent on disposable nappies, there is a cost to the taxpayer of 10p to dispose of them! Leicestershire taxpayers pay £250,000 every year to dump disposable nappies in landfill sites. By ‘going cloth’ your family can incur a direct saving of up to £500.

The initial consultation was manipulated to include responses from people who wouldn't be affected by the scheme. This 'fix' enabled the council to claim a 50%/50% split vote, but their own guidance (document HP 4/15) states "Experience has shown that Resident Parking Schemes will not be successful unless they have majority support of responses received". 50% is not a majority, but members of all parties (including the Greens!) decided to go ahead anyway. There is neither the wish nor the need to move from free parking to permits of £120 per year plus the cost of visitor permits. Council officers and members deny that the scheme is about the money. But a FOI (Freedom of Information) request showed that, in this zone alone, they could expect net profits (ie profits after costs) of £700,000 over 10 years: and that without any increase to permit or parking costs. The Council intends to continue rolling out its pay-for-parking schemes right across Brighton and Hove, in every area: these schemes are viral. Once an area has a scheme, displaced parkers create parking problems in neighbouring areas, who then also feel forced into having a scheme, and so it goes on. It is a completely deliberate attempt to create a 'cash cow'. The council was so keen to instigate its scheme (we had already refused it twice) that its contractors worked all over Bank Holiday weekend (starting at 8am with angle grinders, diggers etc). The lines are painted and some of the sign posts are already in. We are already being harassed by 'fake' parking tickets and bully-boy tactics by the council's contractors (and have plenty of evidence). The schemes spoil our environments, discourage visitors and threaten local businesses. In other areas, people have dug up front gardens to create off-road parking: flora and fauna lost, as well as the original parking space that was there. Some of us have organised ourselves, but the Ombudsman will not take our case, and we cannot afford a Judicial Review (complaints investigated' by the council themselves have got precisely nowhere, unsurprisingly). The council called the police twice to arrest our local lay priest - he was only exercising his right to peaceful protest, and - thankfully - the police saw this. We need your help, please, in getting the council to stop and pause, and re-run a fair consultation by which we will all stand.