Recent high profile scientific evidence shows that eating a plant-based diet will help prevent worsening climate change. Animal agriculture overuses the world’s precious resources and is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases; 40-50% of farmed grain is fed to animals for the meat and dairy industry. As advocates of an end to unnecessary cruelty to animals, vegans are leading the trend towards a compassionate, ethical and healthy diet and we ask that the BBC stop excluding us from food programming. A fresh new cooking show will inform and help address the problems of stereotyping and cultural reference that prevent so many people from changing to a plant based diet. Veganism is a legally protected belief under Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Yet, it is underrepresented and often misunderstood; generally vegans eat a much wider variety of food than meat eaters. Where is the modern celebrity chef who could introduce innovative culinary television programming that represents vegans and a better nutritional future for everyone? Look to the popularity of people like Lee Watson, author of Peace and Parsnips and five-year vegan, and Áine Carlin, Peasoup blogger and author of The New Vegan. It is time for a distinct and vibrant ethical cooking show to take centre stage, push meat to the side and bring modern and compassionate attitudes in to the heart of the BBC. References 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/no-meat-no-dairy-no-problem-is-2014-the-year-vegans-become-mainstream-9032064.html [Accessed 26 December 2015] 2. https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=753 3.8 million mainly vegetarians in UK and, “according to the European Vegetarian Union, Britain has the third highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union” http://www.libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6123-uk-vegetarians [Accessed 26 December 2015] 3. BBC RADIO 4 - Henry Dimbleby in conversation with Professor Tim Lang (Professor of Food Policy, City University London) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s9d26#play [Accessed 26 December 2015] 4. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/key-facts Other useful information http://www.veganuary.com http://london.vegfest.co.uk/pr-russell-brand 5.Peasoup Blog http://www.peasoupeats.com 6.Deliciously Ella - http://www.deliciouslyella.com https://twitter.com/DeliciouslyElla One World, Many Lives https://www.vegansociety.com

EU Politicians have introduced a new law obliging the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy to organise the killing of hundreds of thousands of grey squirrels, every year from 2016, using methods that include poisoning, bludgeoning to death or trapping and shooting. In the UK the Forestry Commission has drawn up new plans obliging UK landowners to carry out this cull if they wish to receive improvement grants; they would be paid £100 per hectare per year for five years using taxpayers’ money. In March 2014, Oliver Heald, the Solicitor General, told MPs that eradicating the grey squirrel was "no longer considered feasible". Representatives of animal welfare organisations, like Mimi Bekhechi (director of PETA UK) and Andrew Tyler (director of Animal Aid), have stated many times that killing grey squirrels is an inhumane, ecologically and socially damaging practice, and is an absolutely pointless cruelty waged against beautiful animals. Andrew Tyler said, “The grey squirrel is hated by members of certain groups, most notably those with shooting or forestry interests and some 'conservationists' who believe that the mass killing of greys is justifiable in their quest to boost the numbers of red squirrels”. "People have been responsible for wiping out the red squirrel, it's an excuse to blame the grey squirrel. The damage they do is exaggerated. Attempts to purge the landscape of them in the past have failed and this will fail too." Rob Atkinson, the head of wildlife science at the RSPCA, said: "It's ethically dubious killing one species for the sake of another. Up until the 1970s you could get a licence to kill red squirrels, so they were the baddies then, now it's grey squirrels. Apart from all that it doesn't work. There's absolutely no point in doing it." Killing squirrels is to be conducted even in the time of year when females nurse their dependent kittens. Killing thousands of nursing females will cause tens of thousands of baby squirrels to die of starvation. Starving animals is a torture in breach of animal welfare standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health. Scientific research has dispelled many myths about grey squirrels, yet these are still used to ‘justify’ the killing of grey squirrels. The red squirrel population in the UK has been declining for centuries now for a variety of reasons. Their habitat is coniferous woodland, their main diet, seeds from pine cones; these forests now exist mainly in Scotland, England has more deciduous woodland, which is best suited to grey squirrels, This can clearly be seen in the Forestry Commission's 1998 research data on grey and red squirrel numbers across the UK. A huge factor in the decline of red squirrels is the destruction of millions of acres of woodland by humans for agriculture, housing and industrial purposes. As a species, reds are far less adaptable than the grey, and have suffered badly when their habitat has been destroyed by us. Red squirrels will not thrive unless we give them the correct habitat, which will, in turn, limit the greys. These innocent creatures (the grey squirrel) were brought from their native country for the entertainment of wealthy landowners in the 1870s. They have not killed the red squirrels. Up to the late 1970s I remember that red squirrels were being slaughtered by landowners who blamed them for bark stripping and the loss of songbird eggs amongst other things, now it is fashionable to protect them, so blame has been transferred to the grey squirrel. The two species do not share the same habitat or food in most cases, there is no decent or logical justification for this cull. As with badgers there is no logic in the squirrel cull, which will cause untold suffering to a much loved animal and the main beneficiaries are people in the commercial business of killing wild animals.

We call upon all Staffordshire landowners to support the vaccination of badgers to address concerns about Tuberculosis (TB), culling is not the answer. There have been ongoing governmental trials to kill badgers in Somerset, Gloucestershire and Dorset and was extended to six other Counties in 2016, a further 11 cull zones in 2017 and further expansion this year and expected to include Staffordshire. Killing badgers as a method to prevent bovine tuberculosis (TB) as well as being inhumane and barbaric is scientifically proven to be ineffective. The government’s own figures, which were quietly released on the last day before Christmas, show TB in cattle to be rising in and around cull zones. In 2017 19,274 badgers were killed with 20 – 40,000 more expected by the end of 2018. The Welsh Government's approach has been far more successful by focusing on improved testing and movement controls in cattle. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers. Please say no to the badger cull and show the UK Government that we will not let badgers be murdered. Vaccination and cattle control must be implemented.

Fracking gets a lot of attention and rightly so. THere are the environmental aspects of the government striving to grow the burning of fossil fuels of which 'Frackgas' is one of them. The pollution aspect is even more painful with metals such as; arsenic, mercury, cadmium being brought to the surface for clean up. The cost to the communities will be through a massive cost to the Water companies who will pass these additional costs on to their customers. Millions of tonnes of chemical impregnated water will be used in the 'frackgas' operation and it will all need to be treated. Where will the cleaned pollutant residue end up? We have yet to gain an answer to this. Let us look at the visual impact. Stoke on Trent could end up with some 30 derricks blotting the landscape. We know that we have miles upon miles of coal bed methane trapped under our city and towns. There is this licence for 'Frackgas' or the dangerous technique of fracking coal bed methane. This is your country: Protect It

Would you like to attend the funeral of one of your loved ones only to hear the sounds of a neighbouring barbecue or a loud stereo? Would you like to live next door to a constant funeral procession, with all the associated sounds coming through your windows daily? The Scottish Government is proposing to allow crematoriums to be built and operated directly next to your house in their new Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee will meet on January 6th to review their proposals. The Scottish Government have made a huge oversight in their new Cremations and Burials Bill: they have removed the requirement for any minimum distance to be upheld between crematoriums and homes. This is a vital protection for the privacy of mourners and home-owners and a minimum distance must be upheld in law. In the Government's own consultation paper on the bill (which they put out to industry experts to pass comment on their plans) 75% of respondents recommended to keep a minimum distance of 200 yards (see Q11 in this document: https://goo.gl/8PlZ93). The Consultation Report states: "Respondents were strongly in favour of retaining a significant minimum distance. Many who commented considered that the most important factor for retaining a minimum distance was to ensure privacy and dignity for both home owners and mourners. A substantial distance would also ensure adequate provision for memorial gardens and car parking." This petition asks the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to ensure the 200 yard minimum distance is upheld in the new Bill. Already in Haddington, East Lothian, the local planning authority has granted permission for a crematorium to be built in anticipation of the new law - construction has not begun yet but it will soon if the Bill is passed by the Committee this petition is addressed to. For the crematorium in question; there are several neighbouring properties, including a dairy farm. The closest home is only 45 yards away and has bedroom windows below the level of the proposed chimneys in line with the prevailing wind! The proposed car park for the crematorium is directly next to the garden meaning that both the home owners and mourners would have a huge lack of privacy. Imagine walking to your loved-one's funeral and hearing children playing or people laughing? Imagine trying to relax in your garden whilst mourners walk by. Also, emissions from crematoriums are still not entirely understood - particularly and most worryingly in the case of mercury which is present in tooth fillings and is extremely toxic to humans and animals. The Scottish Government hope that by removing the requirement for any minimum distance to be upheld between a crematorium and a home that local planning authorities will make the correct decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the above development is a case in point that this does not work: East Lothian council owns the building in which the proposed crematorium is to be built and they have wanted to sell it for a number of years. They have agreed a deal with a crematorium developer to sell the building and therefore have a vested interest in ensuring everything goes smoothly in the panning process and, as such, have ignored local businesses and home-owners concerns and ignored all of the numerous negative impacts the development might have. They have abandoned due diligence in the pursuit of profit. If the Scottish Government allows this Bill to pass without upholding the minimum distance of 200 yards which is recommended by it's own consultation then it is condemning not only the people of Haddington but also countless others in future to have their homes and businesses - never mind the funerals all over the country - severely affected. The Government's job is to create legislation to protect people in all aspects life and if this Bill is passed into law without upholding any minimum distance between a crematorium and homes/businesses then the Government will fail in it's duty to the people of Scotland. It is clear that Local Planning Authorities are subject to prejudice and therefore fail to protect the people of Scotland given what has occurred in Haddington, East Lothian in anticipation of the new law being passed. Please uphold the minimum distance of 200 yards!

To describe the UKs nuclear waste site as a “Repository” is putting a spin on the UKs main nuclear dump for "low level" waste. There is "controlled discharge direct to the Irish Sea" not to mention run off to the Drigg Stream and River Irt. Discharges to the air of radioactive gases are ongoing. According to the British Geological Society the Drigg site is above a regional aquifer. It is also "likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion" in 500 to 5000 years (computer modelling can be wrong either way) . Much of the waste is long lived and high risk. Below are a few of the reasons why it is important that Cumbria County Council Lock the Gate on Drigg: Planning Application PL\1508\05 (4/15/9012):The phased construction of additional vaults, higher stacking of containers..capping.. 1. Drigg Low Level Waste Repository (the word nuclear was dropped so as not to scare the horses) would continue to accept nuclear waste for decades to come. "Capping" is misleading. To cap” a nuclear dump is akin to putting a cap on a fizzy lemonade bottle while there are holes in the bottom of the bottle. The site will continue to leach aqueous emissions to groundwater and gaseous emissions to air. 2. LOW LEVEL: This suggests that the waste at Drigg is low risk and short lived. Neither is true. As the University of Reading has pointed out: “The Drigg site uses two disposal systems: 1) An original system operated from 1959 to 1988 comprising a series of parallel trenches excavated into glacial clays, back filled with LLW and covered with an interim water resistant cap. 2) Current disposal of compacted waste placed in steel ISO-freight containers, with void space filled with highly fluid cement based grout. These containers are then disposed of in a series of open concrete vaults. Radionuclides with highest activities in the inventory include 3H, 241Pu, 137Cs, 234U and 90Sr, 238U and 232Th. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/16608/1/mrspaper.pdf 3. RADIOACTIVE FLY TIPPING: The chemical and nuclear dump site has moved on from the years 1940 to 1988 when chemical and radioactive waste was tumble tipped into trenches. Now the waste is compacted into steel shipping containers filled with cement. Incredibly the containers are stacked high. In 2013 the LLW management wrote: “in containers at the tops of stacks, the external capping grout has 
undergone extensive physical degradation and settlement; the lids are not full of grout, and the grout is generally heavily cracked. The state of the capping grout in underlying layers is better; most containers only show sparse cracking and typical settlement in the lid is approximately 15 mm. Standing water, sometimes contaminated with low levels of radioactivity, is present in approximately half of the containers at the tops of stacks. ..In containers at the tops of stacks, organic matter has accumulated beneath many open grout ports, with vegetation growing from some grout ports. ..Corrosion, sometimes fully penetrating, is present in some container lids at the tops of stacks…” http://llwrsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/30-RP-LLWRGR-PROJ-0139-Vault-8-Container-Issues-Project-MAS.pdf 4. FLOODWATER AND SEA INUNDATION: “The Environment Agency has given a formal view that “the potential for disruption of the site is an acceptable risk” By “disruption of the site” they mean inundation by sea and flood. This is a far cry from the Environment Agency's previous criticism in 2005: "BNFL (Now the NDA) has not yet demonstrated that the wider benefits to the UK from continued LLW disposal on this site outweigh the potential future impacts" We would hope that Cumbria County Council agree with the Environment Agency's 2005 findings that that the real and present threat of inundation of the Drigg site by flood or by sea is not an acceptable risk to the people of Cumbria or to our international neighbours. 5. THE COLLAPSE in 1985 of the largest black-headed gull breeding colony in Europe on the Drigg dunes has never been satisfactorily explained. The official explanation is that a fox did it! https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/disappearing-trick-birds-and-nuclear-waste/ 6. CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA is officially blamed on "population mixing" due to the influx of workers firstly to the 1940 explosives factory (Royal Ordnance Factory) at Drigg and then the ROF at Sellafield. The irony of this incredible argument is that the plan for 3 new nuclear reactors at ' Moorside' a few miles from Drigg ('Moorside' is at the village of Beckermet) would involve a boom and bust influx of thousands of workers along with a further tsunami of nuclear wastes and ever more Driggs. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-moorside-biggest-nuclear-development-in-europe Many of the Councillors expressed serious concerns at the meeting and yet the vote was unanimously in favour which, to campaigners and the wider public, smacks of something very fishy indeed. To rely on the testament of the Environment Agency who merely look at the information provided to them by the industry is reckless. All projections and computer modelling are based on information provided by the operators. Much of the Drigg site is already unable to be accessed for monitoring due to the stacking of containers. At the planning meeting on 15th July 2016 There was no discussion of a. the increased possibility of criticality with an ever increasing radiological burden. The words criticality “will not occur” cannot be applied to Drigg's LLWR : https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/drigg-decision-we-are-caught-in-a-trap-no-way-out-because-we-love-nuclear-waste-too-much/ b. the ethics of denying future generations the right to protect themselves, c. whether to warn future generations not to dig or distrurb the poisonous chalice beneath the land. d. the ethics of adding to an already intolerable radioactive burden on this vulnerable coastal site.

The environment needs our protection for the future, for generations to come. If you can't explain to a child why it is OK to continue to dump contaminated silt into a pristine sand and sea shell bedded bay, smothering wildlife including protected creatures like the Pink Sea Fan, then it is time to stop trying to justify these actions. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has been given a great responsibility - on behalf of us, the environment and future generations. Despite years of campaigning and despite being taken to the High Court resulting in no dumping taking place for the last 13 months, the MMO is about to issue new licenses again. We call upon the Marine Management Organisation to use their responsibility wisely. Would the Rame Head South site - an inherited 100 year old ammunitions dumpsite - ever be taken into consideration as a new dumpsite if an application was put forward now to start using it for the first time in 2016? Of course not! Why? Because it would be ridiculous to do so: too close to shore, devastating sea life, right next to a Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) with many protected species, very near to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and in an area of outstanding beauty - the Rame Peninsula. Do the right thing: STOP dumping in Whitsand Bay - CLOSE the Rame Head South dumpsite. Whitsand Bay in South East Cornwall is NOT a Dump Site. Recent demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB_gAcoYGVw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccnl5L-g1as Licence application and option to directly object: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmnb-devonport-maintenance-dredging

On 16th December MPs backed fracking under National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) such as Cannock Chase. We call upon the local authorities whom make decisions on planning applications throughout the County:- Cannock Chase District Council, Lichfield District Council, South Staffordshire Borough Council, Stafford Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council to categorically rule out any fracking (including exploratory drilling) anywhere in the County. Staffordshire County Council is in the final stages of approving a fifteen year local minerals plan through to 2030 which includes specific reference to hydrocarbon extraction including shale gas and coal bed methane both of which can be extracted using the technique of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Cannock Chase and the surrounding areas are know to contain Coal Bed Methane although no surveying has been undertaken for Shale Gas at this time. This document can be found on the Staffordshire County Council website. Less than a week following an international agreement to address the impact of climate change in Paris with a commitment to limit global temperature increase to less than 1.5 degrees centigrade all 8 conservative Staffordshire MPs voted to allow fracking in these protected areas. To address the catastrophic effect of climate change we must keep fossil fuels in the ground and not experiment with unproven and unsafe technologies putting our environment and drinking water at risk. This legislation affects Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty like Cannock Chase, National Parks including the Peak District as well as our groundwater protection zones

It is important for people as electric cars are cheaper to run, they don't send out a lot of harmful emissions & its better for the eviroment

It is essential that people's lives recover speedily,lessons learnt and infrastructure updated.

Bristol Council currently uses four glyphosate herbicides including Monsanto's Roundup on our streets and parks. This is despite the fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified glyphosate as likely to cause cancer in humans. The WHO finding sits alongside a wealth of existing evidence that raises alarming questions marks over the long term safety of exposure to glyphosate both on its own and in combination with other chemicals found in formulas such as Roundup. The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share this city with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. If Bristol is to have any credentials as the current European Green Capital, it must exercise the precautionary principle and follow the example of cities such as Chicago, Paris and Rotterdam by banning this spraying in public places. This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this city, of course including our beloved bees. For more information see this article from The Bristol Cable: https://thebristolcable.org/2015/10/bristol-monsanto-and-chemicals/ There are viable safe alternatives to glyphosates. The Netherlands have outright banned glyphosates in public spaces and are using a hot water treatment instead. A hot water and foam method is also available in the UK and Bristol Council is already aware that this can be a more effective alternative than hot water on its own. Glyphosates are the cheapest option but we must send the message loud and clear that value is not just about price and that the health and safety issues around glyphosate render its 'cheap and easy' status irrelevant. Other effective methods may cost more in cash terms but represent far better value to local residents. Using a formula such as Roundup in our public spaces is simply unacceptable no matter how cheap and quick it makes the task of urban weed management.

His request is simple; he wants to speak to you Mr Cameron, to present you with scientific evidence and to show you the social opposition to fracking, particularly from Lancashire where he lives, but he also acts as a passionate green voice for many people in the UK who feel the same way. He isn't a scientist, or a powerful politician or a celebrity; he is a regular everyday bloke who believes fracking is a very bad idea - today (4/12/2015) is his 12th day without food. He wants to talk to you about the exponential growth of support from regular everyday folks who don't have a voice on the telly, the radio or in the papers, but who want you and our government to deliver renewable, sustainable, safe options to power our country. He just wants to talk to you Mr Cameron - go and see him! * * * Gayzer has no PR or media team, no YouTube channel or popular blog page to help raise his profile. Please show your support for his plight; he is your next-door neighbour, he is the voice in the supermarket queue, he is the one who is putting everything on the line to try to protect the future of all of our children.