Over 300 people currently attend one of the day centres facing closure. Most of the users are frail and many suffer from dementia. Being able to meet up with friends means people are less isolated and are able to stay living in the community for much longer. If these services go people may not be able to live independently for a long as they would like to and may be forced into more costly residential care.

We need to get the Ministry Of Transport to pursue VW (in the courts if necessary) and get them to give the UK Owners the same priority and compensation as they have given to the American owners (obviously they were frightened of the American legal system ). We appear to have been sidelined as not important and the UK Government has not promoted our case at all. I drive a VW van and have had only a single letter to tell me my vehicle would have to be re worked to bring it into line , but since that letter a few years ago I have not heard a word. About time some butt kicking was done in high places .

Mr Cameron chose to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union solely to consolidate his political position vis a vis the Tory right and UKIP. It was not a decision that was based on the country's interests or popular demand and the result has caused massive disruption and far reaching problems. He gambled with our futures for his own interests and his behaviour in this respect was not honourable and it would be a travesty to honour him officially.

The current illogical vehicle tax is based on laboratory determined exhaust emissions. Whilst in theory this might sound a good way collecting revenue and at the same time encouraging owner/drivers to buy more efficient vehicles, it does not take into account other factors. The main factors are, load carried, driving style and distance travelled. For example, the owner of a car with a high perceived emission rating standing in a driveway producing zero emissions can be contributing as much or more to the exchequer than the owner of a so called low emission car being driven a long distance badly and heavily loaded producing lots of noxious gases. So it follows then that the only logical way to tax vehicles (if contaminating the atmosphere is really the criteria) is to put all the levy on to fuel and scrap the current tax system. Maybe not popular with the masses initially, however if explained properly and honestly whilst also demonstrating how the revenue generated is being used, transparent and open policies might eventually be appreciated by all.

We are a Stroud-based community action group and we have received a number of complaints regarding the new parking system at Beeches Green. We have sent the following to PropCo and Parking Eye. We would like to register our disapproval – we believe the new system is unnecessary and is resulting in unfair and unjustifiable impacts. Neither patients nor people who work in NHS/Social Care at the site should be forced to pay to park. Staff in the various facilities at Beeches Green report many patients – daily - complaining of confusion regarding the use of the registration machines, many unsure if they are meant to be paying or registering for free parking. The signs are complicated and the two sections of car park (free/paid) are not clearly defined as separate - those with literacy problems may have difficulty with the signs (1% of the population are illiterate and 4% severely dyslexic). Many patients have paid unnecessarily due to fear of charges from Parking Eye and many more have simply not realised that they had to register, resulting in fines. For a several weeks, the pay machines were broken – with several people being fined as a result due to their not having access to the mobile phone app which was presented as the only alternative way to pay. We have spoken to members of staff who tell us that they had never received reports of patients being unable to park under the previous system, though parking was sometimes difficult. When parking became difficult in the past, the caretaker was very successful in preventing non-NHS users from leaving their cars at the site. The new system does not only prevent non-NHS users, but also excludes users and staff of services relating to the new Redwood building and the mammography unit. Previously, many of the people working in this new building were able to park within other parts of the estate. As a part of the NHS, users and staff of the breast screening unit were also able to park for free. Now we have a system where staff and users of some – but not all – NHS and social care services have to pay to park. This has led, amongst other things, to the breast-screening unit moving to a site further from the town centre, creating inconvenience and confusion for those accessing the services.

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.

This is a matter which occupies the bottom of my heart. I came in this country as an asylum seeker 23 years ago. I remember the heartache and anxiety I suffered while my case was being considered. However once I was granted my documents I have gone to become a solicitor and a human rights lawyer. I have children who have graduated from university and our contributions as a family both to economically and socially is huge. I have a company which employs 10 people therefore bring the number of the unemployed down. So imagine if the huge number of illegals were made legal. One can only imagine the huge difference they would bring towards making Britain Better and a lovely peaceful land to live in.

`A swift and decisive decision is important because of the Dire Economic Consequences we were all warned about should the United Kingdom vote for Brexit. This decision is long overdue. The Airports Commission, set up to look into airport capacity in south-east England, published its findings in favour of Heathrow on 1 July 2015. Since then, the final decision has been delayed by David Cameron's government. David Cameron's Government has shown a lack of leadership by failing to make a decision on how to expand airport capacity — a failure which could hurt the economy, Britain’s biggest business lobby group, the CBI, has said. Dithering and delay must be avoided at all costs by ministers who are urged to ‘act swiftly’ and ‘grasp the nettle’ in building a new runway at whichever location the Government’s airports ‘tsar’ Sir Howard Davies recommends. But failure to act quickly could cost the UK economy between 0.2 and 1 per cent of the nation’s wealth or GDP by 2050 - or between £42billion and £214billion over the next 60 years, depending on which site is chosen for expansion, says the CBI, report. The economic consequences of the Government not acting upon the Airports Commission's recommendations include significant lost productivity and inward investment. Gatwick, the West Sussex airport, recently announced a £200m programme of investment until 2021. Projects include expansion of both the north and south terminal departure lounges and immigration halls, upgrading shopping facilities, and extra aircraft parking stands. The airport said it would bring total investment over the next five years to £1.2bn. Heathrow said there were significantly greater benefits to its proposal to build a third runway. "The Airports Commission disagree with Sadiq Khan and Gatwick," said a spokesman. "Brexit makes the Commission's conclusion that, with Heathrow expansion, 'the benefits are significantly greater, for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy', even more persuasive (This is Money) Failure to act quickly could cost the UK economy between 0.2 and 1 per cent of the nation’s wealth or GDP by 2050 - or between £42billion and £214billion over the next 60 years, depending on which site is chosen for expansion a recent report states. The CBI's President, Paul Drechsler, who was previously chief executive of construction firm Wates Group, said: “More than ever before, it is absolutely critical that the government sends a signal, loud and clear, that the UK is open for trade with markets across the globe. “Building a new runway in the southeast is a key decision for the long-term future of our economy and country, and will demonstrate to, and reassure, Britain’s workers, makers, exporters and investors that the UK is open for business. Last year the CBI showed that delays to getting a decision on airport expansion by 2030 could see the UK lose out on over £30 billion in lost trade with the BRIC economies alone. “Our new analysis shows that our European rivals with spare capacity will be gaining at the UK’s expense, cashing in on their own thriving connectivity, if we fail to get on and build a new runway. By 2030, better capacity will see German trade with the BRIC economies alone grow by an additional £15 billion, and French trade grow by £7.5 billion – trade that could and should be coming here. “We could still avoid this scenario, if the new prime minister makes a decision with a clear timetable for action immediately after entering Downing Street, so that construction can begin by 2020.” . "Brexit makes the Commission's conclusion that, with Heathrow expansion, 'the benefits are significantly greater, for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy', even more persuasive I THEREFORE PETITION, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, THERESA MAY, THE PRIME MINISTER AND HER GOVERNMENT to make a SPEEDY decision on the construction of a Third Runway for the South East of England, Heathrow or Gatwick, before the end of this Parliamentary Session for the benefit of the Ordinary People of this United Kingdom and her Economy as recommended by the Expert Opinions cited above.

This service serves the public very well and is well used. I believe that this is a crucial service, particularly because of the difficulty accessing health care both in normal working hours and OOH services.

Walsall Council have put into action changes to our weekly bin collection to fortnightly. They offered a larger grey bin for residents who feel they need a one but they have to meet certain criteria that was listed on the leaflets distributed. 2,000 people in Walsall have had their applications for a larger bin rejected. I am sure I am not the only resident of Walsall to question the affects this will have on fly tipping, unpleasants smells for having two weeks old food, nappies, waste from pets etc in bins and the increase in vermin it will attract. It also raises the question if in doing this saves the council money, why we as residents cannot have a reduction in our council tax for the reduced fortnightly service?

Many people are really struggling as this is actually an extra tax on the poor and vulnerable of our nation and people are being uprooted from their homes where many have lived for years and disabled people who use their spare room because they need it are being unfarly penalised

‘First I am want to add my apologies to the event and the huge admiration for Barnet UNISON.I want to send a message of support to John Burgess & the Save Barnet Libraries campaign for their tireless & inspirational community campaign to protect their local Library service. I would encourage everyone to join their Kids4Libraries this Saturday 12 September. Barnet Council are determined to outsource all of their services I salute Barnet UNISON & the community campaign for their ongoing fight to defend public services.’ (Jeremy Corbyn September 2015, http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/wp/page/2/?s=Libraries ) Barnet Council has begun statutory consultation with all of the Library workers. The proposals seek to: 1. Sack 50% of the workforce. 2. Restrict the number of hours the Libraries are open with staff. 3. Limit access to Libraries for children under 16 and the disabled. 4. Replace paid workers with volunteers. 5. Prepare the remaining service for outsourcing. 6. Shrink the size of many of the Libraries. This is an attempt to disguise the destruction of a Library Service which recently achieved a 93% customer satisfaction rating. This proposal is yet another example of how Austerity policies are decimating public services. Libraries are a valuable community asset and need defending. Library services across the country are facing extinction, now is the time to join the fight for Libraries. Incredibly, 11 July 2016 Barnet Council announced they would be increasing the size of their Press Team at a cost of £0.5 million a year, whilst cutting Library frontline services. Every signature you secure for this petition does help the service and the morale of our members facing redundancy. For further details: https://youtu.be/_3XfibjbJuA http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/14541517.___We_need_to_take_action______Barnet_library_workers_to_strike_over_cuts_to_service/ http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/publications/public-bodies/transformation-and-public-service-reform/options-appraisals/direct-and-collateral-damage-to-barnet-librari/barnet-libraries-unison-march-2016.pdf