Any cuts to this vital service would cause real hardship to the less able in many parts of Wiltshire

To give disabled people the right to travel where and whenever they wish. My husband and I were asked to leave the bus because the driver said there was no room even though there was a seat by the stairs, he said I couldn't sit there with my rollator unless I could collapse it first and put it somewhere.

There is, on average, a significant incident every four days, with someone being fatally or seriously injured every month on Streatham High Road. The road is trying to serve too many purposes. It’s a commuter route, a haulier route, a bus route as well as a busy shopping street. These needs are incompatible. Drivers see the wide road, 3 lanes and lack of speed signs and treat it as a dual carriageway. Research shows half of them break the 30mph speed limit. On the other hand, residents see it as their High Street and dart between cars to make it to the middle section where they stand between six lanes of traffic before making the final dash to Sainsbury’s to pick up some milk. Streatham’s population is growing. There’s the redevelopment of the bowling alley and work’s started on Caesar’s. This is brilliant and such an exciting time for the area but it will only make the risks of the A23 greater. There seems to be a lot of chat on this issue but no action. Lambeth remains London’s deadliest borough with more people dying in Lambeth than anywhere else in London. **Please note this petition is not party political. We have cross-party support. Your contact details will NOT be shared with anyone.**

For 50 years the people of Lowestoft have agreed that It is important to ease congestion in the town centre and Oulton Broad. We want to draw people back to trading and shopping in Lowestoft. This polder dam crossing is the option that will bring most economic benefit to the town. It will join the town together after years of being split by the river without destroying existing homes and businesses. It is also the cheapest option, considering all access points are already in place and there are no businesses or homes to be destroyed or relocated, unlike the other options. YET IT IS THE ONE THAT NO ONE IN OUR COUNTY OR DISTRICT COUNCIL HAS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED!! DESPITE 3 MEETINGS ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF PASSIONATE CITIZENS OF LOWESTOFT! The fishing Industry in Lowestoft is vital! As June Mummery from BFP Fish Auctioneers stated:" A third crossing would make access to the Fish Market easier when deliveries of fish and sundries are coming in and out." Emergency vehicles are held up waiting for the current bridge, which opens up several times a day to let small boats through, and every minute lost could cost lives! A polder dam bridge will be a unique tourist attraction in itself, and is the option that will bring most economic benefit to the town. Businesses are currently losing productivity hours while employees are stuck in traffic. It will join the town together after years of being split by the river, without destroying existing homes and businesses. It will benefit public transport. It will improve safe crossing for large articulated lorries which currently get held up. Avoid snarl-ups of through traffic in the town centre. Lets put life back into Lowestoft and draw businesses back into our town!

The Canal & River Trust's claim upon the river waters of England and Wales violates the ancient law of riparian rights, established by Henry II in 1188. These rights have never been revoked or repealed, just ignored and abused by the authorities over the years. They state categorically that river waters belong to the landowners of the river bank, and that all citizens have the right to navigate these waters unencumbered. The Transport Act 1968 transferred these rights to British Waterways (the forerunner of the Canal & River Trust), but these rights were not Parliament's to give away, as they belong to their rightful owners, the landowners of the river banks and those who wish to navigate the river waters. These rights do not diminish, unlike those associated with footpaths and bridleways. They remain intact, even if they have not been exercised for many years.

No Limitations was established by a group of seven creative minds that still stand today, in partnership with “The Challenge” and “Heathrow Community Fund”, to build more step-free access across all London Underground stations from the streets right onto the train. We all know that there are barely any facilities available, such as lifts and ramps to help disabled users access the tube. It’s for that reason why this campaign No Limitations is aimed to help disabled and buggy users access the London Underground with ease. So far there are only 66 out of 270 tube stations that have disabled access- but it’s not enough! However we can help make a change. By signing this petition, you will help to speed up the process of providing more facilities for disabled users. Did you know that only 38 stations out of the entire London Underground network have step-free access from the streets right onto the trains. Our first mission is to have step-free access from the streets right onto the tube for North Acton and Northolt station for disabled users. Why was this Introduced? A young thoughtful man “Abdul-Rahmaan” experienced a family friend's depression (a wheelchair user) over a long 1 hour work journey from North Acton to Northolt Station, which would only take only 10 minutes by train. The thought occurred to him “what does public transport mean?” – “Transport for the Public”. Therefore - he takes the bus every day, which in busy traffic can often take an hour. 1 hour each morning & each evening; for a ten minute journey. This issue remained silent with him; so Mr Rahmaan, stepped forward introducing the idea of building step-free access facilities for the public to 'The Challenge' and 'The Heathrow Community Fund', which will soon benefit millions of disabled peoples lives in traveling. “My dad's friend is a wheelchair user and has to travel from North Acton to Northolt daily for work; a journey that would take 10 minutes on the train. Due to the lack of disabled facilities in these stations, it means he is unable to access the train.Therefore - he takes the bus every day, which in busy traffic can often take an hour. 1 hour each morning & each evening; for a ten minute journey. This is not fair and has to change" Abdul-Rahmaan, 18

The proposed cuts to bus services in Brighton and Hove will detrimentally effect some of the most vulnerable areas of Brighton. Particularly the Meadowview area which is home to many low income families and pensioners who will be left completely cut off from the city. The cuts are to affect mostly evening, bank holiday and weekend services leaving many members of our community completely stranded after dark, unable to safely return home, or forced to walk a badly lit and sparsely populated stretches of road. Many of us who regularly use the bus services to Meadowview are disabled and are unable to climb Coombe or Bear road. We strongly oppose the proposed measures as they will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our area leaving them further disenfranchised and segregated from the wider community. Cutting bus services in a city which takes pride in its stance on social inclusion and sustainable development is reprehensible and will have a detrimental affect on some of the most vulnerable members of our community and our environment. We urge you to reconsider the proposed cuts and seek and alternative.

For all disabled people to be able to travel on buses. I was asked to leave a "first" bus the other week with my husband because the driver felt the bus was over crowded and although there was a seat beside the stairs, he said I could not sit there as it was again health and safety regulations. As we got off, my husband noticed, there was in fact a space beside a buggy that was already there

Canal & River Trust (CART) declared on 13th February 2015 that from 1st May this year it will refuse to re-license all boats that “don’t move … far enough or often enough” to meet its Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring – unless they take a permanent mooring. This places boat families under unique pressure as many cannot afford a mooring. Many boat dwellers work locally and some are key workers. Many require access to local services such as health care and schools and will be put to extreme difficulty if forced to move unreasonable distances. Like it or not, socio-political realities have made the waterways an affordable housing resource for many families. Canal & River Trust has long denied this reality, describing themselves as a 'navigation authority' and harbouring a marked hostility towards the water-based community. This position is no longer tenable and CART needs to accept its responsibilities as a landlord. MORE INFORMATION CART's new policy sets requirements that go beyond those stated in Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Boat dwellers are happy to comply with the clearly stated, lawful requirement not to remain continuously in any one place for more than 14 days. However, the 1995 Act does not contain any requirement to travel a minimum distance or to follow any specific cruising pattern beyond the 14-day limit. The new policy means that boat dwellers are being forced to travel distances that put them out of reach of their jobs or their children's schools, and make it impossible for them to access health care or to stay near elderly relatives. If they choose to keep their homes they will be faced with the need to give up working, take their children out of school, miss out on vital health care and abandon elderly family members. If a boat licence is terminated, or renewal refused, the boat is then unlicensed. CART has the power under Section 8 (2) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to seize, remove and sell unlicensed boats from its waterways. Section 13 (3) (a) of the British Waterways Act 1971 gives CART the power to demolish a houseboat that it has seized. In cases where a boat is lived on, CART obtains a Court Order and also obtains an Injunction banning the boat dweller from ever returning to its waterways. Breach of an Injunction carries the penalty of arrest and imprisonment. Therefore, the boat dweller not only becomes homeless but loses the only asset that they own. Information provided in response to a Freedom of information request showed that in 2010-2011 the enforcement team had a target to seize 100 "non compliant" boats each year. When boats are seized, CART contracts with a firm of Bailiffs to tow the boat away and the Police are present. Permanent residential moorings that boat dwellers can legally live on are in very short supply. Where they exist, they are very expensive (up to £25,000 per year in London). The majority of marinas will turn you away if you live on your boat. Over 90% of permanent moorings are non-residential (“leisure moorings”). CART knows that if boat dwellers live on leisure moorings they risk having planning enforcement action taken against them for unauthorised residential use. In London and the south there is a severe shortage of moorings and mooring fees are vastly inflated. CART's own directly managed moorings are priced using an auction system where the highest bidder wins. Some private moorings have waiting lists of 9 years and more. There is no security of tenure for boat moorings so even if you do take a mooring, you could be evicted at the whim of the marina owner. CART is the largest inland navigation authority in the UK. It owns or manages some 80% of the waterways. The Environment Agency and other smaller bodies own and/or manage the remaining 20%. If CART refuses to renew the licence of a boat dweller, there are few, if any, other places that a boat dweller can take their boat. CART's latest move is yet another attack on the right to use and live on a boat without a permanent mooring; a right that Parliament enshrined in law in 1995 when it passed Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Before 1995 British Waterways (which became CART in 2012) sought powers to force all boats to have a mooring and criminal penalties against anyone caught living on their boat without a permanent residential mooring and a houseboat certificate. Parliament refused British Waterways these powers and acted to protect the 10,000 or so boat dwellers that would have become homeless in 1995 by wording Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 in such a way that it included a wide variety of patterns of boat use including those boat dwellers who needed to remain close to a place of work, children's education, health care or elderly relatives. The reasoning behind the wording of this section can be found in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that drafted the 1995 Act.

The street is a residential street with a primary school, five religious establishments and some 60 units of sheltered retirement accommodation including elderly and sometimes vulnerable residents, with pedestrian access directly onto the street. This proposal represents a serious threat to public safety and health, and amenity. It will also increase traffic congestion and pollution rather than solve any of the pressing town centre problems.

Boris Johnson and TfL imposed a 15 year age limit on London taxi cabs to reduce emissions in the capital. TfL are a public body and their decisions must be evidence based, rational, proportionate and fair. The taxi age limit was introduced without proper testing to prove that the age limit would be of benefit. MPs and assembly members asked for the testing to be done but it was never carried out. The Defra report from 2013 proves that newer vehicles do not produce less harmful emissions than older ones. It concludes that all emissions strategies in London have failed. See section 4.3 page 44 for details on London Taxis. http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/cat05/1307161149_130715_DefraRemoteSensingReport_Final.pdf London's taxi drivers would love to replace their current vehicles with ones that are fully electric or zero emissions capable, but these vehicles are not currently available. Taxi drivers must scrap their 15 year old vehicles, even though they meet current standards, and purchase new £40,000 diesel vehicles. These diesel taxis will not meet the standards of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone that Boris is planning to introduce in 2020 . Please sign this petition to get the age limit on London's Black cabs removed. If a London Taxi is fit for purpose and passes current emission standards it should be allowed to stay on the road.

Disabled Blue Badge holders rely on their cars to visit the doctor, go shopping or take part in leisure activities. They can't use public transport. Charging them to park is punishing them for being disabled. Blue Badge holders may choose to go elsewhere, impacting on the city's economy or park on double yellow lines causing congestion. How is this Creating Decent Neighbourhoods? Charging disabled residents and visitors to the city to park is detrimental to both the disabled person and Newcastle. Disabled staff with Blue Badges have to drive to work. It is not a choice. They can't use public transport. They can't walk to work. A free parking space for disabled employees with Blue Badges is not a luxury it is a reasonable adjustment. It is unlawful to ask a disabled person to pay for a reasonable adjustment. Disabled employees should not be made to pay for a reasonable adjustment. Charging disabled employees will raise £4,500 a year. This will make no difference to the Council but some disabled employees will no longer be able to afford to work. How will this make Newcastle A Working City? This action targets those Hardest Hit by Welfare Reform and government cuts and discriminates against the most isolated and excluded in society. Parking charges for the lowest paid staff will go up by 580% but those on the highest salaries will have no increase. People in low paid jobs are more likely to be from BME communities, carers, disabled or women. How does this Tackle Inequalities. Council staff earning less than £15,000 will be subsidizing parking for those earning over £100.000. How are these changes fair? How are they justifiable? Does this make Newcastle City Council Fit for Purpose? Newcastle is often voted the friendliest city in the UK. The Geordie welcome is world famous. Do the people of Newcastle really want their city to be known as a place that doesn't welcome disabled people? Does Newcastle City Council really want to be seen as widening the pay gap between their highest and lowest paid employees? Or does Newcastle want to be seen as a vibrant, forward thinking, Socially Just city that supports the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and excluded in society?