The closure of respite care and transfers for after care from hospital to Winifred Kettle home in Westhoughton is very important to our community Many people have used the facilities of this wonderful care home over many years. The services of dedicated staff from cleaners, domestics, carers and managers is exemplary. We all may need the services in the future. The elderly population is increasing, but more homes are closing. Many carers are elderly themselves and circumstances do not allow them to look after loved ones. We must rally round together to put pressure on Bolton councillors to change their minds.

Its a no brainer. People are hungry and poor and food is being wasted. Three men were recently arrested for taking food from a supermarket skip, this food would be wasted and yet the needy get arrested for taking it.

This is a very important facility which at present serves 7 Schools, 4 Day Centres, 6 Care Homes and about 135 individuals each week. The people using the Pool are aged from 6 months to 80+ and cover a very wide variety of disabilities and injuries. It has 2 Physiotherapists who do one to one sessions, some Aqua fit classes and of course the straightforward sessions for people unable to exercise in a normal swimming pool or on dry land. This facility keeps people mobile, in less pain, helps them recover from surgery, eases spasms and so many more wonderful benefits. It is the only facility fit for purpose in the Peterborough and surrounding area. We need you to keep funding it until an alternative is in place. Feel free to check out St George's Community Hydrotherapy Pool on http://www.sgchp.btck.co.uk/

The use of water cannon would be a violent and excessive use of force to combat protests on the streets of the UK. The right to protest is one of the most important aspects of our free and open democracy and I believe that the threat of this weapon will be an inhibitor to people of all ages from exercising that right. My concerns are twofold. 1 - ACPO's own report into water cannon states that: "the full-pressure jet from a water cannon is capable of causing serious injury or even death and says there are also possible injuries from the impact on the body of street furniture or other debris." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest We have seen all too frequently instances of police abusing their power, and using unnecessary force to break up protests. Be it the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the assault on anti-fracking campaigner Sean O'Donnell, elements of the police force would prefer to use violence and aggression to silence peaceful protest. I don't believe allowing them access to this weapon will lead to less unprovoked aggression, but more. 2. This leads to my second point. The police are not the government's armed guards, hired to subjugate the will of the people. Increasingly I fear they are becoming so. ACPO argue that they would like water cannon in their arsenal "because austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest For starters that is presumptive, and is not representative of their own report: "The report says there is no intelligence to suggest there is an increased likelihood of serious riots within England and Wales." If, however, they are right that increased austerity measures will need to further protests, then so be it. The people have a right to protest against the actions of the government that they do not agree with. It is not the job of the police to suppress this feeling with threat of serious injury, or even death, through the use of water cannon should people wish to protest. The police are for the protection of us all, not to maintain the establishment status quo. Water cannon are dangerous to the public and reinforce the notion that the police may use excessive force to quell the will of the people.

Bradford Council are currently conducting a "Libraries Review" and are proposing removing this vital service from some communities and reducing this in others. Libraries serve a vital educational purpose and provide access to anyone in the country. People from all ages and backgrounds use the service and it is a disgrace that the Council can cut this. The government says it is keen on improving education of young people but still allows Councils, like Bradford, to destroy the library service. Local libraries are the backbone of many villages and provide a fantastic range of books, both fiction and non-fiction, internet access and an information service on various things. Many are used as meeting places for local people and serve their communities well. The council have proposed branch libraries be run by volunteers and moving the location of these to much smaller impractical places including places of worship, community and private buildings. This could be as small as a few bookshelves in a local church or shop which could also be unmanned. This would seriously damage the education of both young and old by reducing access to books and educational material. These plans also include the complete removal of mobile and housebound services, both used by the most vulnerable and disabled people in the district. Without this service many residents would have no access to any books, the service is a lifeline to them. The mobile library also visits areas where local libraries have been axed in the past, so the loss of this would result in no library access in that area. The library service is a service we cannot afford to loose and we cannot stand around and let these highly paid MPs walk all over it. This is about loosing a necessity that our ancestors fought to have, it is about mass job losses and most importantly it is about the damage it will have on education of the people in the district. Do not let this happen. Sign our petition today and SAVE YOUR LIBRARY!

My Mum who has rapidly progressing Alzheimer’s disease uses the centre. It is a local lifeline for many local residents, as a caring unit which understands her condition and provides a friendly and stimulating environment, and for the carers such as myself to get some much needed respite. The proposal is to move the Patey clients to the Royal Albert Day Centre in the centre of Portsmouth which would be extremely detrimental for the majority of them. They are a close knit group of individuals who thrive on the familiarity and security of both their number and setting. The skilled carers provide stimulating activities which maintain their clients' skills, helping them to feel valued and promoting independence. The move to the much larger Royal Albert Centre and much longer journey would be frightening and hasten the progress of their disease as the unfamiliarity will cause confusion. Portsmouth City Council's own Dementia Action Plan 2013/14 states: “Objective one of the Portsmouth Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy is to enhance the quality of life for people with dementia” “2142 residents will have some form of dementia · 55% (1178) will be mild, 32%(685) will be moderate, 13% (279) will be severe” “Portsmouth aspires to be a dementia friendly city where people with dementia will be treated with respect and feel included in our local communities.” “There will need to be a shift away from acute care towards primary and community based service provision, including rehabilitation and reablement.” “Support for carers is key” By closing the Patey Centre there will be just 60 spaces for the 2142 sufferers of alzheimers and dementia in the whole of Portsmouth. Portsmouth NEEDS more spaces not less. The Council claim this is a cost cutting measure however this is only true in the short term. Longer term there will be: growing costs of caring for increasing numbers of isolated dementia sufferers in their homes for whom there are no day care spaces; an increased need for residential care as overwhelmed carers without specialist day care respite will reach breaking point faster; and additional costs transporting people to the Royal Albert. The Council's intention is to sell the land the Patey Centre is on to help fund a residential home for people with alzheimers in the north of the city, why doesn't this incorporate the Patey Centre? The 2142 sufferers of alzheimers and dementia in Portsmouth are vulnerable people, many with carers such as myself who are stretched to breaking point. Their needs are being ignored and their excellent day centre is being lost. Please don't close the Patey Centre in Cosham, without providing alternative specialist day care for people with alzheimers and dementia in the north of Portsmouth, put the needs of the people of Portsmouth first.

Dear Minister, Maria Eagle stated in The House of Commons Debate on Food Poverty on Wednesday 18th December 2013 that, "there is a very straightforward way for Ministers to clear up any doubt about the reasons for the increase in reliance on food aid: they can finally publish the official report into the growth of food banks, which was delivered to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June. That report has now been sat on by Ministers for six months, longer than it took to produce. In April, the then Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), said: “The conclusions of this work will be available in the summer and published on the Government's website.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 821W.] Now Ministers say the report is still being subjected to “an appropriate review and quality assurance process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 1293.]" I demand that The Department of Work and Pensions and DEFRA release this report so that we can all see if the Government's report agrees with, or disputes claims from Voluntary Organizations and Churches; that one third of people referred to Food Banks are due to Social Security delays and cuts. I would also like to remind you that people, working and unemployed, who are referred to Food Banks, can usually only be referred to them three times within a twelve month period, after that there is no help! I would like to know from you, why this report has been subject to "review and quality assurance" for so long and when will it be released?

On the 4th December, 2013, the government announced that children who were in foster care would be allowed and supported to remain with their foster carers until they were 21 years of age. There was much celebration amongst campaigners when the announcement was made. However, those celebrations did not extend to children and young people in children’s homes. Children in residential care are not included in this change even though arguably the residential sector cares for possibly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people who may be unable, or indeed choose not to be fostered. ECLCM is a campaign group, without funding or political affiliations with any other group, formed to stop Government discrimination against children in residential care who want support to 21, the same as those in foster care. One young 15 year old in residential care said: Just because foster children are settled in a family environment does not mean that young people in residential are not. I would love to live here until I am 21.' Children in children’s homes will still face being discharged from care at 18 (or even younger) and facing the savage disadvantages that life can bring. We know from the feedback we received that these young people were not celebrating last week. It is our view that increasing the care leaving age for fostered children and not those in other residential settings will have unintended consequences. It will: • create a ‘two tier’ care system, in which children in foster care receive longer aftercare support than those residential settings; • create an ‘underclass’ of children in care who have to leave care at 18; • reduce real choice for children as they will be compelled to accept family care in order to gain better aftercare; • create serious issues for social workers when family placements are breaking down. Instead of considering a residential care option, they may repeat family placements in an effort to protect aftercare; • have an impact on the self-image and confidence of children in residential settings other than foster care, who may feel undervalued and discriminated against by a change which excludes them through no fault of their own. We welcome the change in leaving age for fostered children to 21 years of age. We congratulate the campaigners who achieved this and acknowledge work that took place over several years. However, we feel that to accept this change whilst excluding other children in care is discriminatory and not sufficient. We ask that the government support all children and young people in care to 21 years of age. We ask all those who share our view to support our campaign for equality. It is the least we can do for our children. Petitioners: BEN ASHCROFT @AshcroftBen IAN DICKSON @IDickson258 ROSIE CANNING @RosieCanning1 ED NIXON @EdNixon2 LISA CHERRY @_LisaCherry PAOLO HEWITT @PaoloHewitt1 ALEX WHEATLE MBE @brixtonbard DR JOSIE PEARSE @angelstrand DR GORDON MILSON @gordonmilson HELEN WILLIAMS @coralhels MARY CAMPBELL-WHARAM @insight_mary RAYNE O'BRIEN @rayne_obrien DANIELLE McLAUGHLIN @Dmamclaughlin ROSE DEVEREUX @RoseDevereux1 PHILOMENA HARRISON IVOR FRANK, LLB, Barrister-at law

Access to Work isn't a benefit and doesn't incur a cost to government - in fact it brings money into the treasury, yet Deaf and disabled people are having their support allowance capped or cuts made (meaning they can no longer afford to use qualified interpreters or the support they need). This places jobs at risk and has already resulted in job losses and demotions. People currently in work are potentially being forced out of work and onto benefits, which goes against everything the government is telling us they are trying to achieve. Deaf and disabled people bring a vast amount of skill and talent to our workforce that we can't afford to lose. We want to ensure that full support is provided, and people are enabled to gain, maintain and progress in their chosen careers. Personal choice and control needs to be handed back to the experts on Deaf and disabled access needs in the workplace - the individual Deaf and disabled people who use the scheme We want to ensure Deaf and disabled people are not subjected to a glass ceiling due to lack of support.

I believe that the time has come that our representatives should no longer be allowed to eat at subsidised private restaurants, and that the food they consume should be brought into line with food the general public can buy at the same price point. Our MPs, having just given themselves a 25% pay rise, are still able to eat subsidised food at these exclusive restaurants, often for less than the cost of a full english breakfast at a greasy spoon cafe, or a McDonalds "meal deal". Please refer to the cost they pay for meals as shown in the freedom of information request from 2012, as linked below for some indication of the (sarcasm alert !) outrageous costs they have to pay. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-responses/foi-disclosures-2012/foi-disclosures-july---september-2012-/house-of-commons-restaurants-and-bars/ Example: Grilled rump steak with Diane sauce and parmentier potatoes £4

The trust's medical director Edwin Borman told BBC Radio Shropshire "we need to have a countywide debate... we need to have serious decision-making" about the future of accident and emergency care in the county. Shrewsbury and Telford both have A&E departments but the trust is concerned resources are spread too thinly to sustain both of them. Mr Borman said that a trial to move urgent stroke care to Telford had resulted in patients getting the most important parts of their treatment more quickly. People in Montgomeryshire and surrounding areas need services to remain in Shrewsbury as Telford is too far travel. For more info: Please check out our facebook page link on the left under the map If you want to know more about us please go to other Campaign Website link under the map 8th Sept UPDATE: 8388 signatures ... Following the start of paper petitions last Tues 5th Sept and support from shops, residents, businesses and volunteers in Welshpool and Newtown collecting on the street we are proud to announce our total number of supporters. Thank you we will continue to promote this cause and thanks for all your support to date lets all keep up the good work 17th Sept... 9607 signatures....Thanks for all who have signed on line... also great response to the paper petition for those who are unable to site on the web. PLEASE KEEP SHARING AND ASKING FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO SIGN...LETS GET THIS PETITION OVER 10,000 THIS WEEK 18th Sept UPDATE .... 10,166 have signed so far... Keep signing

Did you know that the UK NHS Ambulance Service is NOT currently recognised by the Government as an "Emergency Service"? (we are currently only classified as an essential service). Why is it important to receive recognition? = If the Ambulance service is officially recognised as an "Emergency Service" the funding would come from central government rather than the NHS budget. How would this affect you? - You would almost certainly get a better funded, better trained and better equipped ambulance service for yourself and your family = if you think that is important?