The petition of residents of United Kingdom, Declares that there is compelling evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that interacting with pets can be beneficial to the physical, social, and emotional well-being of humans and that the human-animal emotional bond does not differ from the one that we sustain in relation to close family members; further that the twenty-first century is the beginning of the revolution in ethics related to scientific evidence regarding consciousness in animals – now confirmed that it is astonishingly close to humans; further that mental health services in the UK are overstretched, have long waiting times and a lack specialist services in some regions; further that the Mental Health Foundation also recognises the value of “pet therapy” in suicide prevention and treating depression leading to it; further that there is no scientific research to support the thesis that tenants who have pets are worse, more difficult or cause more damage to properties than those who do not; and further that almost all tenancy agreements, by default, contain a no pet clause, which is nothing more than a prejudiced practice, as a result, people who have pets are especially victimised in their attempt to simply put a roof over their heads in this difficult housing crisis context. Therefore, the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation that recognises the importance of the emotional relationship of man and their non-human family members; further to put the interest of the most vulnerable and the public interest above the right of the property owners if the property is a subject of commercial gain; and further that the legislation should allow the emotional support animal access in housing facilities, even when the complex has a no pet policy or breed/weight discriminatory policies.

For some years now social housing has been in decline & those people on housing benefit are in dire need of housing many of them single parent family’s. Who are unable to work due to there individual circumstances. Such as a wife beaten up by her husband having to seek temporary shelter & unable to return to the family home now having to live in a one room B&B with her three children. Unable to rent a private flat or house as the private landlord is discriminating against her due to her being on Housing benefit!! She is now forced to live in a one room B&B with other families in the same situation. This law must change today for these People need our help! In particular they need your help & those of your friends & family who are lucky to live in there own home. What is the point of housing benefit if No landlord in the private sector will accept it? This must change & they must be forced to accept them on short term let’s & long term let’s there must be no difference between the two. So private land lords are switching to holiday let’s rather than normal letting this is because they can offer short term let’s which makes it easier to remove bad tenants which is understandable & B&B is where perhaps they should be but why should the vast majority be penalised due to the small minority? Please support these people many of them very vulnerable young women with children who have hurt no one!!

Our successful charity shop is the only visible support in the Swanley area for the elderly and sells really useful clothes and goods at low prices to help those in need in our community. We also have a 5-day a week walk in advice and information service and we help in tackling isolation and loneliness for the elderly in our community. It has also helped older volunteers gain the confidence to get back into other employment. The shop is profitable so us volunteers are at a complete loss as to why the trustees are closing it and want them to reverse their decision to fulfil their remit as trustees and in the best interests of the elderly in our area.

My son is 12 and a size 8. While we are paying full price for shoes and trainers grown adults with small feet are getting children’s prices. It’s not fair that we can pay up to double as my son has large feet.

The number of people parking on double yellow lines outside School is increasing. This puts children at risk. Make all councils put double red lines outside schools so there is no stopping. To increase the safety of children.

The oceans are already choked with plastic and by 2050 , there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. This could mean starvation to many people and countries that depend on the ocean to survive. This is the sort of environment that breeds conflict and war, thus causing more pollution. I have 5 grandchildren who will be part of this polluted world along with billions of others. We have no need to worry about world war three, as pollution will eradicate the population before , if we don't take action now. If we target supermarkets like Asda, then we can pressurise them into making a difference.

This is very important because people are not aware that there is help that they can get everyone has a right to feel safe when it comes to there mental state .

At the moment on a really good day we get 5.00 Mbps, at the moment i get 1.00 Mbps. By 2013 they said they said they would upgrade our WiFi to fibre broadband (about 30.00 Mbps)(which is about 5X better than it is now) which they never did.

Cllr Margaret Pattison, Cllr Janice Hanson, Cllr Darren Clifford and Cllr David Whittaker are very concerned with living in a seaside area such as Morecambe and Heysham that children should have a local pool to learn to swim. The pool has 54.000 visitors a year with 16 schools using the pool for swimming lessons and groups helping people to keep fit and healthy, if closed this would effect the health and safety of the people in Morecambe.

The EU referendum represented a low point in post war UK democratic politics. Only now are problems coming to the fore that were not considered in the referendum and not debated at the time. Oeople did not know the consequences of them and Brexit impact reports are being unacceptably hidden from the people. This is unacceptable and we need a final decision when we know exactly what Brexit means and that means the full terms of an any deal.

I know this Petition will be a touchy subject for those who have had to apply for a Spouse Visa in the last four years to allow a non-EU domiciled spouse into the UK from abroad. I have made every effort to keep this petition explanation short and hope my point comes across to your clearly and concisely, and that you will support my initiative to urge our fellow Minister of State, Rt Hon Brandon Lewis to look into this as a matter of urgency and bring about a change in pricing policy. Here is my Story: I, Andy Wilkinson am a UK Citizen and married my wife Sylvia Alexis in 2010 who was from Pretoria, South Africa. She joined me in the UK as my partner having acquired a spouse visa - costing around £600 in 2010. In March 2012, we decided to move to Cape Town for few years for a job opportunity for which I had been accepted. Late last year, my role came to an end, and we had to move back home. After reviewing the criteria for the UK Visa, it was obvious I would have to come back to the UK alone and find a job that qualified me for the financial requirement of the minimum income threshold which was required. In June 2017, we were set to apply for Sylvia’s Spouse Visa and was advised the cost to be £1,464 pounds. The Issue: Given the current recessionary economic climate in the UK, a huge population of the work force just about get by with what they earn (See my link to the Guardian’s newspaper below to see the income situation of UK Citizens). What happens when a UK Citizen finds their match from abroad, and have to pay £1,464 to bring them into the UK, this becomes a sticky situation an unaffordable price for many. Therefore a number of questions have come to mind? Why has the government which came into power in 2010, suddenly hiked the prices of a spouse visa for a UK Citizen’s partner. Ofcourse the government has an ambition of curbing the national debt, but penalizing UK citizens for having chosen a partner from abroad is not one of the best ways of doing it. A visa cost of £600 in 2010, and the same visa in 2017 costs £1,464. It would frustrate any logical minded person how the steep increase of 140% is justified. Or is the government simply trying to rake in as much money as it can from a situation they know the applicant has no alternative choice but to pay. I feel this is a penalization technique to those who have found their match from abroad. Ofcourse it will be argued that this has been a decision to curb exploitative marriages. But what about those who have been married for many years, those who have kids, certainly they cannot be labeled as exploitative – so why should they have to pay such a hefty visa cost? Finally, it may also be argued this is to stop UK Citizens bringing in partners from abroad. This cannot be something the government decides. It is every Human’s Right to marry whomsoever they wish. It is not justifiable for the government to apply strong charges, as if to punish a UK Citizen from marrying outside the borders of the UK. Referring back to the article by the Guardian, many people who have spouses abroad will have to wait, or pay the cost using expensive methods of credits (credit cards, loans etc), and this certainly can’t be a reasonable strategy. What do I want? I want your support to urge our Minister of State, Rt Hon Brandon Lewis, to look into reducing the cost of a spouse visa for UK citizens who plan to bring in their spouse’s from abroad. The visa costs should be designed so that they are equitable to all UK Citizens, not assuming everyone is a high income earner. (For I am not a high UK earner, but am grateful Sylvia has now joined me in the UK). I also understand that the government has taken a consultation process to determine fee levels for certain visas, but the visa that I am concerned is for UK Citizens who have/plan to bring their spouse from abroad. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/20/one-in-four-uk-families-have-less-than-95-in-savings-report-finds

Cars have been speeding round these streets at break neck speed something needs to be done before someone is killed