It is important that all disabled veterans are supported by the government as it is the same government that placed them in areas of conflict that has resulted in them requiring financial supports as a result of the injuries they received while serving their country this including loss of mobility, loss of their ability to maintain their basic personal care, ie such as washing dressing, nutrition. Please support this petition to ensure that those U.K veterans who have been left permanently disabled do not also find themselves financially disadvantaged due to the these changes. Ian Duncan Smith needs to remove this process, provide a fair system and be forced to support disabled veterans and not just on Poppy Day. It will only take a few minutes of your time, but a life time of difference to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

Huddersfield is one of the largest towns in the UK. It has a growing economy and thriving student population. To take away the Huddersfield Royal Infirmary A&E will undoubtedly cost lives (with Calderdale Royal Hospital being the 'nearest' A&E). It will increase the burden on Primary Care, especially in rural areas where resources are already limited. Latest news reports suggest this could be the start of a bigger plan to demolish the HRI completely, which would be catastrophic not only in terms of job losses but potential lives lost, and again increasing the strain on over-stretched Primary Care services. http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/live-huddersfield-royal-infirmary-set-10739008

Stealing doctors from poorer countries who need them more is morally indefensible, and insufficient doctors for the NHS means over long hours for those we have and less safe practises. Doctors who pay for their own training feel free to leave Britain immediately which is a drain on reserves.

14 members of University Hospital of Wales Staff are being taken to court for parking at their own workplace. This comes more than 4 years since since the Assembly Government scrapped hospital car parking charges in Wales! 600 more staff will also be targeted to pay fines which start at £30 a ticket but then rise to hundreds of pounds per ticket. Staff are being asked to pay thousands of pounds of costs and charges to Indigo (Vinci) which has a contract with Cardiff and Vale Healthboard to manage parking at their University Hospital Site. However the available number of spaces for staff to park are wholly inadequate and management have been aware of this problem over a number of years. Despite some park and ride options many staff members such as new mums and parents of young children have no choice whether to drive to work or not. Other staff members come to work 90 minutes before they start work to queue for a precious parking space. This situation has been ignored by management for too long and now Indgio are aggressively pursuing staff members for thousands of pounds of historical fines. Some of these staff members are on low wages but make up the frontline staff at UHW.

Kent County Council has a statutory requirement to take into account the needs of ALL road users when setting local speed limits. In 2014, Kent recorded an 11% increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured on its roads. At 20mph EVERYBODY benefits, including the most vulnerable members of our community. Child pedestrian accidents decrease by up to 70%. Slower speeds are elderly, disability and dementia friendly, reducing casualties by up to 20%. Walking and cycling become safer and more attractive modes of transport. Toxic diesel fumes are reduced to the equivalent of taking half of all petrol cars off the road. Traffic flow improves and congestion is eased. Journey times are increased by only a few seconds. Area-wide, blanket speed limits cost less to implement and are more effective than separate zones. On August 24th 2015 Faversham Town Council pledged their support for a 20mph scheme throughout Faversham Town Over 15m people are now living in 20mph boroughs. We deserve the same! Thank you for your support www.faversham.20splentyforus.org.uk Twitter: @20sPlentyFav Facebook: 20sPlentyFaversham

Junior doctors of the United Kingdom have reluctantly, and almost unanimously, voted in favour of the first "all-out" strike in the history of the NHS. This is in response to the proposed imposition of a contract which is widely acknowledged in medical circles to be unsafe for patients and doctors alike, without mentioning the likelihood of a significant cut in pay for medical staff, while asking them to work longer hours. This is not a decision that has been made lightly, and at all points the BMA has remained open to the option of full, fair contract negotiations - an option which Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt and the current government have repeatedly declined to take. Throughout this process, junior doctors have been the target of a smear campaign headed by national media institutions, none so fervently as The Sun newspaper. This systematic abuse reached a new low today (10/01/2015) in an article entitled "Moet medics: High life of docs’ leaders who are heading up NHS strike", which passes beyond slander into the realms of active discrimination. To take photos of doctors on holiday from personal social media accounts and print them in a national newspaper is invasion of privacy enough, without pretending that this is evidence of a "jet-set lifestyle" being enjoyed by these medical professionals. As part of every doctor's contract, they are entitled to periods of annual leave, and whether they choose to travel abroad or not during this time is utterly irrelevant to their professional practice. Similarly, stating that these doctors are "champagne-swilling socialists" on the basis that one individual supported a ratified candidate in their successful campaign for the position of head of the Labour party is not only a sweeping generalisation completely immaterial to the debate at hand, but is an attempt to debase an entire profession by implying that, for doctors, the right to political expression is not a basic human right. The same is true of publishing the values of property owned by various committee members - the insinuation being that home-ownership in major UK cities is somehow a crime for the medical staff who work in these areas, and being able to afford accommodation is evidence of the "high life". Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrine the right of every UK citizen to " the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence", "freedom of thought" and "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas". For an article in a mainstream newspaper to imply that a person's profession and position on committees somehow renders these guarantees forfeit is not only a pathetic excuse for "investigative journalism", but also risks setting a dangerous precedent whereby the basic rights of essential, hard-working medical professionals are eroded in the public conscience. Such thinly-veiled attacks on dedicated doctors will serve only to reduce already unprecedented low levels of morale, and further drive the ongoing exodus from the medical profession in the United Kingdom. As such, we the undersigned petition Tony Gallagher and The Sun to limit the damage done to these individuals and the medical profession as a whole by submitting a full, unreserved apology to the BMA junior doctors' committee in a prominent position on the front page of an edition of their newspaper.

When vulnerable people attend civic offices for meetings this can be stressful, there could be difficulties during the day which means the service user feels low and we need to show them support when it's needed and not to eject them from the building or just call Police/London Ambulance Service. This will extend a duty of care and show equality for those who suffer with mental health issues if they are In a vulnerable position. #MHFirstAid

It happens in other countries and the stores make enough profit already. In Ireland all clothing stores have to supply paper bags for free to customers. Here even clothing stores are now charging for carrier bags.

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!

People in the South Park area will lose access to medical support and advice. People with in need of a doctor or nurse will have to go to A & E as there really aren't any spaces in the local surgeries. People with long term chronic illnesses like myself will be abandoned and left to cope as well as we can.

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.

No more life's should be lost and our sons/daughters other family members should still be here now , we miss them and don't want no more family's losing loved ones bless the forever young