As your constituent, I was concerned recently in the local press to hear you state “In the event of such a vote, I would vote to repeal it. In my judgement, and the judgement of others, the Act does nothing to protect wild animals and, in many cases, is actually detrimental to animal welfare when other methods of control are deployed, several of which can be indiscriminate.” what concerns me is not your statement which is based not on any research or based on facts but rather ideology but you seem to think this is a common view held by your constituents. I would also like to highlight there are many within your own political party who do not support the repeal of this law http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/ Also I would recommend you read the following report http://www.league.org.uk/~/media/Files/LACS/Publications/Hunting-Act-Report-2014.pdf I’ve seen a video about hunting that I just had to send you. One of the key arguments of those who support hunting is that it is necessary for ‘wildlife management’ – put more simply, they suggest it is good for controlling fox numbers. I really want you to watch this as it is vital to the debate about the potential repeal of the Hunting Act. A League Against Cruel Sports investigation found 16 fox cubs being kept in a barn, 200 metres from a hunt kennels. An employee of the hunt, their terrier man who is registered as living at the hunt kennels, was filmed entering the barn. Why would a hunt be keeping foxes? The only sensible conclusion is that they had been taken and kept simply to be hunted. The video shows other examples which back up this conclusion. This is not ‘wildlife management’, it is animal cruelty. The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/D7PjfphDsc0 If you would like to hear more information about Wildlife management and help dispel some of the myths from the pro hunting lobby. we will love to see our MP for a local debate on the matter. I hope you will consider this information when voting on the repeal of the Hunting Act. If you would still consider voting for repeal in light of this evidence, I’d really appreciate an explanation why? MPs are meant to be local representatives who vote according best interest of their constituents. Basingstoke is mostly a urban seat and this vote will little impact on them but our MP should at lest speak to her constituents as many would have strong views on animal welfare In the ten years since the Act was passed, it has proven to be an effective and popular piece of legislation. Yet, since its introduction, the Hunting Act has been the target of considerable attack from the pro-hunt lobby which has waged an on-going and concerted campaign of disinformation about the Act. Ministry of Justice figures demonstrate that the Hunting Act out-performs all other wild mammal legislation in England and Wales, having both the highest number of convictions since it was introduced (341 from 2005 to 2013) and conviction rate (65% of charges laid under the Act have resulted in convictions). The successful prosecution of registered hunts private prosecutions against illegal hunters. Subsequently, evidence gathered by team of professional investigators has been used to convict 18 people associated with registered hunts, with more cases still proceeding through the courts. While public support for the prohibition of hunting has always been high, it has increased substantially in the past ten years. The latest polling from Ipsos MORI, conducted in 2014 on behalf of the League, shows: 80% of people think fox hunting should remain illegal 86% think stag hunting should remain illegal and 88% think hare hunting and coursing should remain illegal Some of those pushing for repeal of the Act point out that illegal hunting still takes place. Unfortunately this is true, and like everything from drug laws to speed limits - the problem lies not with the Act, but with those who flout the law. So, ten years on, the Act is working well and with a few simple improvements in some specific areas it can be even more effective. If the law is kept it can be improved on in the future Prohibiting the use of dogs below ground - this is arguably where the worst cruelty occurs in hunting, not only to wild mammals pursued underground with limited opportunity to escape (usually foxes and badgers), but also to the dogs sent below ground to find these animals and either flush them out or hold them at bay. Inserting a ‘reckless’ provision to ensure the killing of wild mammals during a trail hunt cannot be passed off as an ‘unfortunate accident’. Increasing the punishments available to the courts so that the Act is brought in line with other animal protection legislation. Thank you for your time. Thank you in advance for your reply.

These are the people who have so much potential yet they throw away their money on nothing but a bag of chemical which at times can lead to death and many other things. At the end of the day this is the society your living in, would you rather live in a dangerous society with people running about of their heads on drugs, or a place without drugs, a safer and happier environment

On the 24th June 2015 a court in the Netherlands set an amazing precedent. The Dutch government is now legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020, due to a legal case taken up by 900 citizens who would be adversely affected by rising sea levels due to climate change. Under the Conservative government we have gone backwards in regards to renewable energy. Homes and the environment are being put under threat due to broken promises, failure to take positive strides towards sustainability, fracking and the recent finding of oil in Sussex. We are already in a position where we cannot consume more than 20% of our current fossil fuels if we are to stay within two degrees of global warming so as not to reach the tipping point that has been agreed by climate scientists. Therefore we need to be moving towards renewable energy, sustainability rather than further increase our dependence on fossil fuels. Let's make our government take responsibility for their inaction and make it a legal requirement to put sustainability back on the agenda in the United Kingdom.

At the 2013 consultation on preferences for growth in North Tyneside to 2032, 37% of respondents expressed a preference for seeking other options rather than build any new homes, and a further 47% preferred working with neighbours to reduce the requirement to 10-12,000 homes. Only 10% of respondents expressed a preference for building 16,000 homes. The council have selected this option and the Draft Local Plan 2015 sets out plans to build 16,000 extra homes in this plan due to be agreed in 2015. The difference between the chosen growth option and those preferred by the vast majority of respondents is approximately 5000 homes. This is the number of homes planned to be built at two important greenfield sites at Murton and Killingworth Moor. We believe that North Tyneside Council's decision to adopt the higher growth model goes against the clearly expressed view of respondents to the 2013 consultation for no new homes or fewer new homes to be built. We are calling for the Draft Plan to be re-written based on the preferred low / no growth model, and remove proposed plans for 5000 new homes.

Castlefields Park is habitat for buzzards, owls, squirrels, songbirds, turtle doves, bats, and insect life, and mass tree removal will disturb them greatly. The birds require high trees in which to perch; the trees are a precious asset to the park and the community. Please sign the petition and also email your concerns to [email protected]. Thanks.

These crops are a known potential major health hazard to all living organisms, hence why they have been banned in many countries across the globe. They will also affect non GM foods, the soil, water and more, causing contamination via winds carrying seeds. This is a major issue that will result in major health issues from now and years to come affecting you, your children and the future of our food industry.

It is essential that we decarbonise the UK's electricity generation sector. Onshore wind has made a very significant contribution to delivering decarbonisation to date and had been moving towards a position of being independent of subsidies. Brutally cutting subsidies now will effectively destroy the onshore sector at a critical time in its development. This makes no environmental or economic sense, just as decarbonisation targets are about to be missed and we are approaching the Paris Climate Change Summit. The Government's own surveys show that onshore wind commands the support of over two thirds of those asked, far more than fracking. The Govt's destruction of the onshore wind sector will destroy invester confidence in UK renewables and will fly in the face of global moves to protect the climate.

A popular community green space, owned by SCC (Shropshire County Council), is under threat of being developed as a sporting facility, By OCC (Oswestry Cricket Club) We are petitioning to Shropshire County Council for Brynhafod field to maintain a beautiful, green urban environment, inclusive to ALL members of the community, including toddlers, wheel chair users and dog walkers.

It helps to increase the national % of renewables. It creates new manufacturing jobs. It upscales production of solar panel tiles reducing the price for home owners in existing buildings to buy and install them on their homes.

In a council estate near mine they are spending 5 million on new roofs kitchens, this I feel is money wasted as in these estates are not going to last long. So instead why don't they invest that 5 million on installing solar panels on every roof in the estate? That way would reduce bills for people and cut emissions this should be a priority for all estates and would help meet our goals of cutting co2 and help people with bills.

We, the undersigned, recognise the need for good sports facilities for schools but oppose this development because it will risk the destruction of a precious natural landscape, threaten wildlife and remove a valued area of recreational space from the local community.

Kate is a Chartered Surveyor and young mother of two from Wilmslow. One day she was pushing her daughter (in a pram) along a one-way residential street when suddenly she was shunted by a van which had veered on to the pavement, ‘clipping’ both her and the pram. Luckily she and her baby weren't hurt but she was very shaken. She asked others if this had happened to them and received a number of responses advising of "near misses” and “problem areas” where accidents could happen if improvements weren't made. Overall there was a strong consensus that road safety needed to be addressed and improved in Wilmslow. Incidents such as these are not necessarily picked up in accident reports and therefore the risks to the most vulnerable road users are routinely underestimated. Cheshire East Council have been presented in the past with a petition of 150+ signatures and countless letters, yet there is still no visible action on this issue. This is why we're asking to introduce a 20mph limit where people live, as has been done successfully in many villages, towns and neighbouring areas. We are also petitioning for improved pedestrian crossings at the following locations: a) Hawthorn Street at the junction with Altrincham Rd b) Hawthorn Street close to Pepperberry Day Nursery (where the pavement stops) c) Chapel Lane Shops (junctions with South Oak Lane/Buckingham road and Bourne St/Nursery Lane) d) Knutsford Rd close to the junction of Church Rd/Upcast Lane. Please sign this petition to bring the speed limit down NOW and to improve some of the more dangerous roads and pedestrian crossings. For maximum impact, please share this request with family, friends and other Wilmslow residents. Why a 20mph limit? • Safer – “A pedestrian hit at 20mph has nearly 100% chance of survival. At 30mph nearly a quarter of pedestrians hit by a car would be killed.” Source: Sustrans • Better – improved quality of life for all, particularly for children, the disabled and the elderly. Less congestion for motorists: with switching to walking and cycling there would be fewer cars on the road, and by driving more slowly vehicles can pack in more closely together thereby improving traffic flow. • Popular – 80% of the public and 75% of drivers support 20 mph as a speed limit on residential streets. Source: 20splentyforus.org.uk, survey conducted by PACTS. • Affordable – 20mph limits can be enforced without humps: for the cost of turning one street in Wilmslow into a 20mph zone with traffic calming, the whole of Wilmslow could benefit from a default 20mph speed limit.