The practice of taking money from two customers for the same car. There is no other name for this but legalised fraud. Also, DVLA rules are complex which can lead people to make mistakes especially for those who are unaccustomed to the internet. Even if the mistake is made by the DVLA, they are not allowed to refund tax paid. This is unacceptable.

The Post office is the vital hub of the community in George Lane South Woodford .

Poor weather conditions has caused a dangerous layer of ice and snow to cover the roads of Wigston Meadows. On the morning of January 25th a Lorry could not leave the development and blocked the entrance and exit for all vehicles. A salesperson from the development has already disapproved of the gritting saying that in the event of there being a motor vehicle accident the parties involved in the accident would hold DWH / Barratt involved. The residents completely disagree with this sentiment and all signees will not hold DWH / Barratt responsible for accidents caused on roads that have been gritted. There are occupied houses immediately adjacent to the T-junction entering the development and if the roads remain un-gritted there is a risk of a vehicle colliding with these houses. Signees require immediate action on this to ensure safe travel of vehicles, safe passage of pedestrians including children, and safe entry and exit of the development.

60 families will lose their homes with nowhere to go apart from temporary accommodation miles away

This is a disease as I just said not cosmetic it can br hireditory and will usually run through females within the family

On 19 January coroner David Urpeth recorded a verdict of unlawful killing at the inquests for Jason Mercer, 44, from Rotherham and Alexandru Murgeanu, 22, of Mansfield, who died when a lorry crashed into their vehicles near Sheffield on 7 June 2019 on the stretch of the M1 where the hard shoulder has been replaced by an active lane. Mr Urpeth said Smart Motorways without a hard shoulder carry "an ongoing risk of future deaths" and called for a review of Smart Motorway schemes. These deaths are 2 of many that have occurred on Smart Motorways and more deaths will happen if they are not removed and a safe hard shoulder is reinstated.

Providing boxes of food is degrading, doesn't represent good value for taxpayers' cash and does not allow parents to choose what is best for their children. Almost every council in Scotland provides cash or vouchers directly to families. East Ayrshire should do the same.

It is unacceptable and cruel to make the millions of self-employed wait months for a fourth SEISS grant that may or may not be even at the 80% trading profits of those whom own their own businesses. Whilst billions of pounds are given to the economy by the self-employed, annually we are not being financially supported enough during the pandemic and the length of time between payments is unrealistically long for most families. This is causing undue suffering and worry and is wholly unacceptable, especially to those who are unable to access benefits.

We live in a rural location and rely heavily on internet and internet based sevices for business, education and entertainment. We are located in a village that has 95% fibre coverage and BT has left out our road of 36 houses and 1 public house due to apparent capacity issues. Our businesses need to keep running without consistent outages and interruptions due to inferior broadband technology. Our residents need to keep up and participate with current and on going technology evolution.

The new variant of COVID -19 has been reported to be 70% more transmissible than the original virus. All health and social care workers dealing with suspected or positive patients are at greater risk of serious illness and death. The current level of staff sickness in the NHS and in social care and the mounting death toll for these dedicated workers is completely unacceptable. This needs to be addressed now, not in weeks or months time.

They do not understand the root causes of homelessness, homeless people are often looked down upon as being "lazy" and "not looking for a job" but being homeless is what contributes to the unemployment rather than the other way round. To have a job, you need a bank account, to have a bank account you often need an address. This means that homeless people are stuck in a cycle of unemployment.

In state-run schools, and in private schools where at least part of the funding came from government, corporal punishment was outlawed by the British Parliament in 1986, following a 1982 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that such punishment could not be administered without parental consent, and that a child's "right to education" could not be infringed by suspending children who, with parental approval, refused to submit to corporal punishment. It became apparent that hitting children in school was morally wrong and now it is illegal. Permanently excluding a child is an act in which a school decides, plans and then executes the traumatic punishment of rejection. The similarities with the decision making, planning and then execution of a physical attack on a child are painfully obvious. There is no moral argument to justify saying to a child they are no longer wanted by the institution that is set up to act in loco parentis for a substantial period of that child’s life. The first objection to making permanent exclusion illegal will inevitably be that schools cannot cope with the behaviour of some children and they need to be able to safeguard other children and staff. In order to make permanent exclusions illegal this objection has to be answered to the complete satisfaction of both teachers and parents. If the law were to change then it would have to be accompanied by an increase in school budgets to ensure they are able to adequately fund the options that are available instead of permanently excluding the child. This proposal fully recognises that this is a pre-requisite and requires all those who might support this movement to sign up to ensuring schools are able to deliver their new statutory duty and ensure all their children receive a full-time education until their legal school leaving age. The moral argument for not permanently excluding a child is clear. If for a minute you ignore the reason for the permanent exclusion, then the action of removing a child from its school is a traumatic event which inevitable has consequences for the child. Put simply it is a rejection of the child by an organisation which is charged with acting as a good parent while it educates them. The act of a permanent exclusion (rejection) is not one a good parent would countenance and yet we allow schools to do this based on the excuse that there was no other option. We aim to prove this is a false premise which allows schools to abdicate all responsibility for a child who they were supposed to nurture and educate. To demonstrate the number and variety of options a school can already use instead of a permanent exclusion the following list (which is not exhaustive) has been assembled. 1. Managed move to another school 2. Move to a pupil referral unit 3. Counselling 4. Mentoring 5. Therapy 6. Move to a special school 7. Part time timetables 8. Alternative education providers 9. Colleges 10 Temporary exclusion while other options are sought. “But children who are permanently excluded are not singled out; it is only based on what they have done?” 78% of pupils who are permanently excluded either have SEN, are classified as in need or are eligible for free school meals. 11% of permanently excluded children have all three characteristics Boys with social, emotional and mental health difficulties (SEMH) but no statement are around 3.8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than a non-SEN child. SEMH girls are around 3 times more likely. Children in receipt of Free School Meals are around 45% more likely to be excluded than other pupils Black Caribbean are around 1.7 times more likely, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean children were around 1.6 times more likely, to be permanently excluded compared to White British children. Children on a Children in Need plan are around 4 times more likely to be permanently excluded compared to those with no social care classification Children who have a Child Protection Plan are around 3.5 times more likely to be permanently excluded. Children who are looked after are around 2.3 times as likely to be permanently excluded than children who have never been supported by social care. It is clear that if you are a vulnerable child, you are in far more likely to be excluded than those who are not vulnerable. It is perverse that the children in most need of stability, understanding and support are those who are far more likely to be rejected by the very people who are paid to prepare them for adulthood. This campaign seeks to make permanent exclusions illegal whilst funding and supporting schools to find and organise a form of education that removes the stigma and trauma of a permanent exclusion. The IRCT is starting this national campaign in order to encourage all schools, politicians and parents to come up with a different system than the current one which officially tells children they are no longer wanted by their school. Many of the children permanently excluded have already suffered Adverse Childhood Experiences. To officially inflect another trauma on these children is both cruel and unnecessary. All children permanently excluded are still legally entitled to a full-time education which the local authority has to provide. Why then does there have to be a formal rejection of the child in order to try and find suitable education for these children? Surely the organisation that knows them best should be central to ensuring any new plan addresses the needs of the child.