Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates. All scientific evidence shows the healing benefits for pain due to a multitude of ailments, and NO detrimental affects on mind or health at all. At a time when Britain is facing brutal austerity measure, The Institute For Social And Economic Research recently estimated that a regulated market could reduce the government deficit by up to £1.25bn, whilst producing roughly £400m in "net benefit" for the country. I have multiple sclerolis and most if not all the 'legal' pain relief I have been prescribed, take the edge off the pains but at the same time doing damage to my internal organs. Cannabis works and causes no damage at all. All humans have been naturally designed to work alongside cannabis. Doctors take the oath to provide help and healing, yet they can not offer cannabis in its natural form and they themselves feel helpless, as they are well aware of the therapeutic benefits of cannabis yet held back due to the law falsely claiming that it's dangerous without showing any scientific proof at all

This concerns every person living in Britain. What happened to Mr Hilton can happen to anyone in Britain, whether we’re aware of it or not. The following took place. Mr Hilton of Meadoway, Church in East Lancashire felt very vulnerable and grew increasingly upset when he was threatened with eviction from the home in which he’d been living for 30 years. He responded by threatening to blow up his home. The reason for the eviction was that Mr Hilton developed rent arrears as a result of what PM David Cameron euphemistically and callously calls the withdrawal of the spare room subsidy, and what I see as an instrument of a feudal aristocracy, the so-called bedroom tax. We all tend to assume that when someone else is threatened with eviction, the person could make this ‘go away’ if only they would act. Because we have no choice but to believe that if it happened to us, we would make it go away. Because we, we would act. That is how threatening the idea of an eviction is to most of us. Losing our home… In reality, however, there is often very little a person can do against an eviction for arrears if the person has no money. In cases of rent arrears caused by the so-called bedroom tax, it is safe to assume that if the person was unable to do anything about the bedroom tax, he or she is equally unable to do anything about the eviction. Effectively, Mr Hilton was being threatened with homelessness after having lived in his home for 30 years. I don’t know Mr Hilton and he may have been seriously mentally ill. If he was merely terribly stressed, then chances are that he did not stick his head in the sand, but simply felt there was nothing he could do and was convinced that his housing association could not do anything for him either. I think that he threatened to blow up his home because he could not accept the idea that there was absolutely nothing he could do to stop the eviction. He did not blow up anything at all, and no one got hurt. He just yelled. He was arrested because he had made many people worried which can be seen as a disturbance. He has been in custody since the beginning of June 2014. The plea hearing is set for 22 August 2014 and his trial hearing is scheduled for 12 November 2014. A little earlier, namely in May 2014, David Garbett of Sunderland took similarly drastic steps when he chained himself and his wheelchair to the railings of Southwick JobCentre. In his case, his Employment Support Allowance had stopped which meant that he became unable to buy food and pay bills. After he chained himself to the JobCentre, Mr Garbett’s claim was settled, and his payments were backdated. Mr Garbett was not in danger of losing his home, but he too was desperate so he did something desperate. When austerity has already been part of your daily life for years, there is no room for more austerity. It is believed that Mr Hilton was eligible for exemption from this wretched bedroom tax, but apparently did not know how to obtain this exemption. It is also believed that Mr Hilton had been in bad mental health for some time. So here we have two men who apparently both had health problems. One was losing his home and spoke desperte words that others felt threatened by, but did not carry out his threats. The other one was fed up with having to go to the food bank and being unable to pay his bills and did not threaten but took desperate action. One is now in detention and has lost his home. The other one’s claims were reinstated and backdated. Mr Hilton – the man in detention – is a victim, not a criminal. He deserves leniency.

The health risks of coal ash are well known and widely documented; coal ash containing arsenic, mercury, lead, and many more heavy metals, many of which are toxic. These toxic constituents of the coal ash extracted will pollute the air, the land and our drinking water; this poses acute risks of cancer and neurological damage, along with damage to the heart, lung disease, kidney disease, reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illness, birth defects, and impaired bone growth in children (PSR, 2009; 2010; 2014*).   The planning application 2013/0223 can be seen here: http://applications.barnsley.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=681860&XSLT=/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Barnsley/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Barnsley/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING We are alarmed that the coucil only wrote to a small number of houses in out village when the serious risk of lethal air pollution will effect every resident in Elsecar, Hoyland and their neighbouring areas. The 40, 000 cubic meters of toxic coal ash this application hopes to extract from a residential area would contaminate the air that we breath; many of the local residents already suffer respiratory issues such as asthma, bronchiectasis, COPD and lung cancers, along with many of the other aforementioned health problems, due to previous coal mining in this area. The proposed excration of coal ash would exacerbate existing health problems due to previous coal mining, and cause new lethal health problems for the residents of the village - the toxic dust would also coat our buildings, plants, allotments, outbuildings, and vehicles.   The detrimental effects that the proposed works will have on our air quality and also our quality of life are not acceptable. The planning application outlines the use of 15 - 20 x 20 tonne lorries transporting coal ash for a 6 - 12 month period; along with the toxic air pollution, is the issue of noise from these works, which will be in very close proximity to our properties, causing daily disruption to the residents; the only routes available to access the proposed sites are all small roads in a populated residential area which is home to people and children of all ages using residential housing, primary schools, churches, doctors surgeries, heritage facilities, leisure facilities and access to local transport.    Furthermore, these proposed works also pose serious risks to our properties. We have detailed structural and environmental surveys from the purchase of our properties which highlight the fragility of the local land and the neighbouring areas from previous mining. Many buildings in the village, and others in the surrounding areas, have been affected by subsidence in the past as a result of previous mining, with many local properties having encountered structural damage as a result.  We feel the proposed extraction of 40, 000cubic meters of coal ash poses serious short and long terms risks to the foundations of local and historic buildings on land which has been mined previously, contains air shafts and has experienced previous subsidence - to the extent that some buildings had to have remedial works carried out, and some were demolished.  We are deeply concerned that this proposal - which will affect the entire village - has not been communicated to all the residents it will affect. Only a small number of residents received a short notification letter from the Development Service department at Barnsley Council, leaving the majority of the village neighbouring unaware of the dangerous works being proposed. Many residents are alarmed by the seemingly covert nature of the handling of this application. Please help us to reject of this application, as we are deeply concerned about the dangers it poses to the health of the local residents, and the risks to the foundations and structure of our properties and local buildings. Thank you for taking the time to look at our petition, we hope you will support us with your signature and by sharing this through social media.

We believe that elderly and disabled people in our community deserve the best possible level of homecare to help them live independently and with dignity. In order to make this happen homecare workers need to be treated fairly and decently so they can do their jobs to the best of their ability. UNISON are therefore calling for this through by asking Bolton Council to adopt our ethical care charter. Across the country too many people who need care and too many care workers are not treated with the dignity they deserve. A number of other councils such as Islington and Reading have already done the right thing and adopted UNISON’s Ethical Care Charter. Please add your name and call ask that Bolton Council take responsibility for ensuring better care for our elderly and disabled people and for better treatment of our homecare workers. We are all going to need care at some point in our lifetimes, it is only right that the people who need it and the workers who provide it are treated with dignity and fairness. For updates visit http://www.unisonbolton.org/ & follow https://twitter.com/UNISON_Bolton

People who save lives everyday shouldn't have to pay to go to work. NHS employees work so hard and are national superheroes. Why should they save someone's life then find they got a parking ticket? The money from the parking fees doesn't always go to the patient care or the NHS, it goes to private companies such as access and Vinci that 'run' the car parks. All these private companies do is check tickets and hand out fines, they may not grit in icy weather of provide any upkeep on the state of the roads. It's disgraceful. Most NHS staff are not paid a great deal and this extra cost is a strain on their wages and added stress for them. They have enough stress, they don't need parking tickets to add to it.

The UK screen for a third of the diseases other progressive countries screen for during the heel prick test offered to all UK babies. Increasing the amount of diseases screened for is very important for treating or curing diseases before symptoms appear. The issue was brought to my attention through a family having a child born with Krabbe's disease. Krabbe's disease can effect anyone. The disease is not recognised immediately and can often be mistaken for colic by parents and doctors, once diagnosed (typically between 2 and 6 months in infants) there is nothing that can be done medically to save the infant. The body's nerves degenerate until the child loses the ability to hear, to see, to feel, to swallow and then to breath. Typically an infant with Krabbe's disease will die before the age of two. This, along with many other diseases, is currently screened for in the USA, but not in the UK. So many diseases / disorders can be treated, or even cured, if recognised before the symptoms appear. From asthma to Krabbes - these could all be screened for during the heel prick test. Why is the UK only recently screening for 9 areas during the heel prick test? As a progressive country we are so far behind. We are not asking for miracle cures or favouritism, just the same chances for our children as others in progressive countries get.

I have been a registered psychiatric nurse for more than twenty years. I am gravely concerned regarding the situation unfolding within our communities and mental health services as a whole. Times are difficult and I appreciate the need for financial constraint but fear we have gone too far down this road. Following the suspension of our local psychiatric inpatient unit in 2012 our area has been without sufficient inpatient beds to meet the needs of its community. Consequently people are being placed in intolerably difficult and potentially life threatening situations, as people are discharged prematurely to free up beds, increasing pressure on dwindling community resources. Similarly people are becoming unnecessarily acute symptomatically, prior to admission, necessitating Mental Health Act Assessment, where timely intervention would minimise the need for such measures. Services are at breaking point and I fear a significant rise in untoward and avoidable incidents were sufficient resources in place. The lack of adequate inpatient beds is resulting in many of our most vulnerable being hospitalised in an untimely manner, hundreds of miles away from family, friends and the familiarity of local support and services, exacerbating difficulties arising from already fragmented care and a lack of continuity and seamlessness within service provision. Waiting times for care co-ordination are in excess of 3 months. Something I have never before encountered, leaving people in the community unsupported and without service provision. Timely intervention at the point of referral is critical to recovery, promoting well-being and optimising the efficacy of community based solutions, as alternatives to hospital admission. My purpose in writing to you is as advocate to those I serve. They are amongst the most vulnerable and I fear, increasingly neglected members of society. I respectfully petition you to bring their plight to the attention of government and support my plea to you, to support the urgent need for adequate inpatient beds, per head of the population. Services are in collapse and otherwise avoidable tragedies are going to become common place. In the last two years 1291 acute inpatient beds have been c!osed. Below is a list of individuals within my local authority, who at the time of writing are being accommodated in inpatient wards a great distance away from local facilities. There are 60 such local authorities in England alone: 19 year old hospitalised 85.2 miles away from home. 20 year old hospitalised 83.1 miles away from home. 23 year old hospitalised 48.2 miles away from home. 27 year old hospitalised 75.6 miles away from home. 27 year old hospitalised 76.8 miles away from home. 30 year old hospitalised 105.5 miles away from home. 34 year old hospitalised 222.6miles away from home. 47 year old hospitalised 82.7 miles away from home. 54 year old hospitalised 316.3 miles away from home. 58 year old hospitalised 237.8 miles away from home. 68 year old hospitalised 81.5 miles away from home. 73 year old hospitalised 69 Miles away from home. 93 year old hospitalised 81.2 miles away from home. My greatest fear is these difficulties are not locally based but reflect a national crisis within the provision of services for those in need of acute psychiatric care.

We need our hospital services back. Maternity and paediatric services at Eastbourne District General Hospital (DGH) were downgraded a year ago. The local NHS Trust said it was a temporary measure. Now we are facing a bleak future with these core services likely to be lost forever in Eastbourne. Why? In May 2013, the local NHS Trust centralised consultant-led maternity services for the area at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings leaving only a midwifery unit at the DGH. At the same time it stopped overnight care for children at the Eastbourne hospital. We were assured these changes were temporary for 18 months only. In the meantime, the East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), the organisation which commissions NHS services, launched a review of permanent services for maternity, paediatrics and emergency gynaecology in East Sussex. It drew up six options, none of which include a two-site option for consultant- delivered services. Option 6 (selected by the CCGs) will keep consultant-led services for maternity and paediatrics at the Conquest Hospital. So people in Eastbourne will have to travel to Hastings for this care with an average total transfer time of 1 hour 34 minutes from the DGH to the Conquest. This far exceeds acceptable safety limits for many interventions such as emergency Caesarean sections. What is our alternative? Save the DGH launched an alternative proposal for the CCGs to consider alongside its six options. Option 7 keeps consultant-led maternity services, emergency gynaecology and in-patient paediatrics at both hospitals. Our proposal also maintains a level one special care baby unit and a short stay paediatric assessment unit at the DGH and the Conquest. It also goes further by stating that all core services, like emergency general surgery and emergency orthopaedics which have recently been removed, are needed and should be provided at the DGH. Option 7 maintains all of the services that the IRP stated must remain. Why do we need Jeremy Hunt's help? The CCGs made a ruling on permanent changes to services in June and selected Option 6. Then HOSC met on the 28th July and failed to refer the decision back to the Secretary of State. The IRP ruling states that these Consultant-led services must remain in Eastbourne and Hastings and therefore we ask Jeremy Hunt to intervene and enforce the IRP ruling. People living in Eastbourne deserve a hospital in the town that provides them with the care they need. If maternity and paediatrics are permanently downgraded at the DGH, we will have the most disadvantaged town in the UK for the population size. Please support us by signing. We need your help! For more information visit www.savethedgh.org.uk

UPDATE 17/10/14: Please join us for the public meeting about Good Hope Hospital at Sutton Town Hall on Thursday, October 23rd at 7pm: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/events/save-good-hope-public-meeting We'll meet beforehand at The Royal Hotel, Sutton Coldfield at 6pm. Our Campaign Group, `Save Good Hope's Local Services', is a group of local people who use and care very much about our local Hospital, Good Hope in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. We are independent of any political Party. Our aims are simply to ensure i) the Heart Of England Trust hold a Public Meeting to explain to their very worried patients from all areas covered by the Hospital what the proposals for change are in detail and so to also enable the patients to voice their concerns and maybe even be reassured; ii) Saying NO to any closures of key departments within the Hospital, as some of the proposals for change allegedly involve the transference of certain key services from Good Hope to other Hospitals within the Trust, Heartlands and Solihull; both great distances to travel for many people and particularly difficult for Carers and those they care for; the elderly, very young and disabled. We were very close to achieving the first aim earlier this year, when the previous Chair of the Trust (who is apparently leaving this month!) along with another Trust official, asked some of our Campaign Group who attended meeting with them in January of this year, to jointly organise such a Public Meeting with the Trust in March. That meeting was suddenly stopped after local MP's met with Trust leaders. Since then, we continued campaigning. However many people are very anxious about the future of their local Hospital, particularly after today's Newspaper headlines, stating the axing of 1000 beds in Hospitals under this Trust across the city (of Birmingham). The Trust have stated several times in the media that they would consult with the public, but so far have refused to name a date for any such consultation/meeting. Therefore, we are asking for one asap, because of the great anxiety regarding details about the Trust's proposals. We and many others feel that now openness and transparency from this Trust towards the huge number of patients it serves, is urgently needed. It is greatly lacking at present and we are asking the Trust to start to `think like a patient' and honour their promise.

All children deserve to be treated equally, if this is deemed a necessary public health measure, then it should apply to all. Children unable to have dairy milk are just as in need of the calcium etc if not more.

The NHS is prided on being free at the point of delivery, in Northern Ireland we deliver our health service under the banner of the NHS and the ethos of free at the point of delivery should never be changed. GP's deal with up to 90% of face to face contact of patients within the NHS, their contribution cannot be measured with a contact fee. As potential patients we have already received directions not to attend A&E's and to first consider vising a GP, GP waiting lists are in the extreme and practices are already struggling to meet the demand placed on them on top of having to cover unfilled doctor posts in Hospitals as well as their own general Practice. Some GP surgeries are beginning to to look like our crowed A&E waiting rooms with patients queuing up for appoints in the mornings due to the limited capacity of GP practices. Growing waiting lists for outpatient and day case procedures are leading to more patients visiting their GP to ensure that their illness has not got worse while waiting for treatment. In a recent poll by doctors in the British Medical Association, BMA, doctors overwhelmingly voted not to introduce a GP charge at its 2014 annual GP conference in York. "Dr Laurence Buckman, a GP from London, added the idea was "unethical, dangerous and disingenuous". Dr Chaand Nagpaul said general practice was becoming "conveyor belt medicine". "Add to this the sheer volume of phone calls, visits, repeat prescriptions, results, reports and hospital correspondence and we have an unmanageable, exhausting and unsustainable workload that puts safety and quality at risk,"

My husband has an advanced prostate cancer. He wants to die at home, but he may not get what he wants, because there are inadequate services and support in the community; and if he runs into any medical problems there is little or no communication between the Hospital and those who work in the community. Whether you want to die in a hospital, a hospice or at home, you need the services to link together and support you. And you need seven days a week services. Research carried out ten years ago found that 2/3 of people want to die in their own homes, but only 1/3 do. Let's all work together to change this! It will be too late for my husband, but it will benefit everyone else. There needs to be an overall plan for each individual, as put forward in the End of Life Care Strategy. This is important for every one of us. Whilst there have been three pilot studies in Lincolnshire, Leeds and Somerset, the majority of Hospital Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups have failed to get their act together. Please sign my petition and show the NHS that people want action and they want it NOW!