While the French government threatens its destruction a blockade has been launched of the The Calais ‘jungle’ refugee camp. Last week’s visit to Calais by the French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve could herald the end for the camp. Now this threat has been amplified by the launching of a blockade of the camp by local businesses, police, truck drivers, dockers and farmers. The blockade is backed by the Mayor of Calais, who is a member of the fascist Front National. The camp is ‘home’ to some 9,000 people, around 800 of them are children, 700 unaccompanied, according to the latest census by Help Refugees. We are year on from the death of Alan Kurdi, the boy found drowned on a beach in Greece, that shocked the world. But things are getting worse. Last week thousands of refugees were rescued from the Mediterranean Sea as they attempted to get to Europe. Now the Calais camp is facing destruction. The British and French governments are failing in their duty of care towards the refugees, victims of war, poverty and oppression. After years of statements scapegoating the refugees by the British and French governments, along with the right wing press, it is no surprise that people draw the mistaken conclusion that the refugees are a problem they have to deal with. We oppose the planned destruction of the Calais camp and the blockade that has been initiated.

In 2014, Public Health England published their final version of a health report on fracking. The report was narrow in its contents and missed out some significant health evidence that indicated hydraulic fracturing impacted upon public health. Since that report, hundreds of other health reports have been published with critical evidence that now needs to be taken into account before any shale activity should proceed within the UK. Medact have released two reports into public health and fracking, both of which have been ignored by the Conservative government. Medact said they have “called for a moratorium on fracking because of the serious risks it poses to public health. Fracking has already been suspended in Wales and Scotland because of health and climate risks and New York State has banned fracking because of the ‘significant health risks’. “The [Medact] report highlights the limitations of Public Health England’s report on fracking, including the fact that it was narrow in scope and failed to critically assess the adequacy and reliability of the regulatory system. “Working with various experts in energy policy and climate change, Medact’s report also describes how shale gas produces a level of GHG emissions that is incompatible with the UK’s commitments to address climate change.” A letter published in the British Medical Journal stated: “The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.” This letter was signed by 18 academic and medical professionals. In Lancashire it was left to the county council’s own director of public health to assess health impact. He advised that there was no regulatory system in place, in that health outcomes are not part of the regulatory bodies’ agenda. He could provide no assurance of baseline or any ongoing monitoring of health. More recently, an important study has been released by Johns Hopkins University linking fracking to an exacerbation of asthma. Public Health England’s mission is: "to protect and improve the nation’s health and to address inequalities" If Public Health England is to fulfil their public duty and mission statement, then to not acknowledge and act upon the wealth of contraindications towards hydraulic fracturing, they could be in breach of their position and may face a legal challenge. A full and concise article by Alan Tootill, with references on this subject, can be found here: http://www.frackingdigest.co.uk/health.htm

Community Hospitals provide health and medical services such as minor injuries departments and hospital beds for those well enough to be released from General Hospitals but still too sick to return to their own homes. These hospitals act as intermediaries, providing care for some of the most vulnerable people in south devon in particular the old and infirm. In particular patients who would have used Ashburton & Buckfastleigh Community Hospital will be put into Totnes Community Hospital instead. This is farther from home, there is no public transport links, and therefore will only cost more money to non-emergency patient transport services. Beds in community hospitals mean General Hospitals are able to move recovering patients enabling them to treat more critical patients. Losing these beds will only serve to bed block General Hospitals, such as Torbay, leading to poorer service. When it comes to Medical treatment this can be the difference in providing outstanding care (saving lives), or being prevented from treating the sick or injured (resulting in preventable deaths and suffering).

To allow the safe passage of innocent men, women and children out of Aleppo, cease the slaughter of innocent civilians and medical staff and allow crucial supplies to these beleaguered people. There are over 60 million refugees globally, people displaced by war and under constant and brutal attack. In my trips to the Jungle in Calais ( France) I met and heard some of the harrowing stories of many innocent and decent people and marvelled at some incredible feats of bravery. All of these stories affected me deeply, especially those concerning the children - hundreds of unaccompanied minors. We all deserve the right to a safe home. The number of displaced and traumatised individuals worldwide is a disgrace and Aleppo is rapidly adding to an already unmanageable crisis. I like many millions of others, want this to stop.

David Cameron announced we’ll welcome 20,000 more Syrian refugees. But there’s a catch. This will take 5 years, leaving thousands of refugees in limbo. It’s now up to us to show that in cities, towns and villages all across the country we’re ready to welcome people now. Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety.We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria. So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need. Please sign and share, or start your own petition for your town or city here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/refugees-welcome

Haringey has the expertise and resource available to provide a good home for many more than four families. It only remains for the Council leadership to submit a request to the Home Office. Why have they refused to do so? The VPR scheme was established by central Government in 2014, and in September 2015 David Cameron promised to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees during the lifetime of the current parliament. The refugees are currently in UNHCR camps in countries neighbouring Syria, and have particular vulnerabilities such as disabilities, or having survived torture, which mean they cannot safely stay in the camp environment. Each refugee is funded to a total of £20,000 over five years, which is channelled through the local authority to pay for the costs of resettlement. So, a family of five would be funded to a total of £100,000. Four such families would be funded to a total of £400,000. These funds are already available to provide important wrap around care and support to refugees arriving through the VPR scheme. Resettling refugees through the VPR scheme would give them the opportunity for a new start. But Cllr Kober and Haringey Council are still refusing to resettle even a small token number of refugees. They claim that central Government funding is inadequate and that they must wait until negotiations via the GLA are concluded. We agree that central Government’s role in dealing with the refugee crisis has been wholly inadequate, but there are funds available now. Eleven other London authorities – including Camden, Islington, Barnet, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Kingston – have started resettlements. We do not agree with using vulnerable refugees as political bargaining chips in negotiations. We must provide support for all those we can, right now. We call on Cllr Kober to take action immediately to bring this about. Four families by Christmas! Please sign the petition if you agree. Further information: https://refugeeswelcomeharingey.wordpress.com By signing this petition your details may be placed in the public domain (e.g. they may be published on the Council’s website).

In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.

Please accept the advice from the soil association and other word leading scientists that glyphosate is harmful to health when ingested in any quantities and the use of it as a pre harvest dessicant has been shown to cause high levels of glyphosate in the grain and humans who consume wheat soya barley based products show significant levels of glyphosate in their urine. It is a WHO suspected carcinogen a hormone disruptor damages the gut biome and may contribute to auto immune disease. The EU has refused a full license and given only a short temporary approval to glyphosate and deprecates it's use as a dessicant. My wife and I both have developed auto immune diseases and we both were exposed to glyphosate spray mist directly and in our food through no choice of our own as it is almost impossible to buy glyphosate free produce. Products that may contain glyphosate from pre harvest desiccation include flour, bread, sauces ,pizza, pastry, beer, soy sauce, biscuits, any meals using wheat as a thickener (most do) etc ... https://www.farminguk.com/news/Soil-Association-writes-to-major-bread-companies-asking-them-to-avoid-glyphosate_42519.html

The State of North Carolina recently enacted House Bill 2 known as HB2. The bill prevents local governments in North Carolina from passing anti-discrimination laws, undoing those already in place. It also permits business owners to discriminate against LGBT+ people on grounds of religious belief, and demands that individuals use the public bathroom corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate, endangering transgender people. This is clearly a huge injustice to the LGBT+ community of the State, but also to those visiting who are now at risk. In 2016 we expect to see nothing but progress when we see LGBT+ rights in the news. Sadly this is not always the case, as we were reminded earlier this year by the passing of this bill in the State of North Carolina. I was dismayed therefore to see that our new Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox MP, has announced plans to open a UK trade office in the state capital Raleigh. Liam Fox must not press ahead with plans to open this office not just as an act of solidarity, but to pressure the authorities of North Carolina to undo these awful laws and keep British people out of harm's way. In response to the enactment of HB2 a boycott of the state has ensued, with musicians pulling out of gigs and businesses withdrawing investment. If the Department for International Trade opens a new UK trade office in Raleigh then this boycott will be undermined. Furthermore the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued a warning to LGBT+ travelers to the State of North Carolina. Brits working at the new office may be put at risk because of HB2. This is unacceptable.

There is no evidence to support that the building of further border defenses at Calais will help resolve the border situation, and will rather put refugees at further risk of injury and death. We need better political dialogue around the safe passage of refugees into Britain. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is Britain's responsibility to care for those affected by wars, poverty and conflict, particularly those that Britain has had a direct hand in creating or maintaining through defensive interventions and the arms trade. Britain's responsibility includes caring for the displaced citizens of those countries on our home soil. The Calais jungle and other migrant camps in the Calais area are a human rights sore on the conscience of the West. The first-step solution is to stop the building of a pointless wall on the UK border in Calais, the second step will be to remove the UK border from Calais and back into the UK. This will ensure a safe passage of refugees into their destination country. The border situation is not going to be solved by building a pointless wall. The camps exist in Calais because the UK has pushed its border controls into France, to try and stem migration into the UK. Since the defenses were built in 2014, net migration into the UK has increased, as have the residents of Calais and the documented border crossing attempts. This proves that these controls have little or no impact on migration into the UK. The UK demonstrates a rigid, racist border control policy by not allowing migration form outside the EU into the UK where people can seek asylum through legal means. This results in people being trapped on the border in Calais living in slum conditions, attempting dangerous crossings to try and reach family and asylum in the UK. Building walls and increasing border defenses has yet to be proven as an effective means of dealing with refugees and migration. Instead it puts pressure on neighbouring countries and fractures international relations with these countries. Stop the building of a pointless wall in Calais, and take our border back onto our own soil. #pointlesswall #Calais #stopthewall ----- Il n’y a aucune preuve soutenant que la construction de défenses frontalières supplémentaires va aider à résoudre la situation à la frontière, et cela va plutôt mettre les réfugiés dans une situation où ils courent plus de risques de blessures et de mort. Nous avons besoin d’un meilleur dialogue politique autour de possibilités de passage sûr des réfugiés vers la Grande-Bretagne. En tant qu’un des pays les plus riches du monde, il est de la responsabilité de la Grande-Bretagne de prendre soin des personnes affectées par la guerre, la pauvreté et les conflits, particulièrement ceux dans lesquels la Grande-Bretagne a une implication directe en les créant ou les maintenant par des interventions défensives ou par les ventes d’armes. La responsabilité de la Grande-Bretagne est notamment d’accueillir des citoyens déplacés sur son propre sol. Les campements existent à Calais parce que le Royaume-uni a déplacé ses contrôles frontaliers en France, pour essayer d’empêcher la migration vers le Royaume-uni. Depuis que des défenses ont été érigées en 2014, la migration nette vers le Royaume-uni a augmenté, comme le nombre de réfugiés présents à Calais et les tentatives documentés de franchissement de la frontière. Cela prouve que ces contrôles ont un impact limité ou pas d’impact sur la migration vers le Royaume-uni. Le Royaume-uni fait preuve d’une politique de contrôle des frontières rigide et raciste en n’autorisant pas l’immigration de l’extérieur de l’Union européenne de personnes qui peuvent demander légalement l’asile. Avec comme résultat des personnes bloquées à la frontière à Calais vivant dans des conditions misérables, essayant dangereusement de franchir la frontière pour rejoindre leur famille et tenter l’asile au Royaume-uni. Il faudrait maintenant prouver que construire des murs et accroître les défenses à la frontière sont un moyen effectif de traiter la question des réfugiés et de la migration. Cela met plutôt sous pression les pays voisins et brise les relations internationales avec ces pays. Arrêtez la construction d’un mur inutile à Calais, et reprenez votre frontière sur votre propre sol. #pointlesswall #Calais #stopthewall

It is important to remove the fee so that most families can be able to make application especially as more children could be further trapped in destitution and limbo if they could not afford such payment in other to regularies their stay, and will therefore continue to be supported by their respective local authority with continuous burden on the tax payer.

Virgin’s brand values - being honest, decent and playing it straight - are totally at odds with the Sun’s track record of misleading reporting, and of playing one group off against another in pursuit of a divisive political agenda. Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights raised serious concerns about a Sun article likening migrants to “cockroaches". He said this was typical of “decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion” by the UK media. Yet since then, the Sun’s demonisation of immigrants has only intensified. The hate campaign reached new heights during the European Union referendum. An upsurge in scare stories about EU migrants was followed by a wave of violence against immigrant families. Virgin’s founder, Sir Richard Branson, has previously spoken out against the “anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric... gaining support in many of the richest nations”. With racist attacks on the rise, it is vital that we all now unite against the hatred and division that has been poisoning our public discourse for so long. As one of the UK’s leading companies, Virgin Media has the chance to take a bold stand for unity and tolerance. By pulling your advertising from the Sun newspaper, you can send a strong message that this aggressive rhetoric has gone too far. In doing so you can position yourself as a company that not only stands out from the crowd, but also stands up for the vulnerable and maligned.