The council are decommissioning a vital care and treatment service for people with mental health issues in Staffordshire called Quest . The council state they have carried out extensive consultation on this issue whilst also admitting no actual service users were consulted. This contravenes the responsibility of the council under the Care Act to involve and treat with respect service users. This is a vital service for its users, without which any service users would see a significant deterioration in their mental health. Without the Quest service many service users will see a significant decline in their mental health as it is vital for users personal, social and occupational well being. The council are decommissioning the service without consulting or communicating with service users which is wrong on a common sense level but also goes against the responsibility the council has to users under the Care Act. The way the matter has been handled by Staffordshire County Council is disappointing to say the least. Users have been informed that the service closes on March 31st but the council refuses to give any details about what care and support the users will become offered after the closure causing practical problems with planning and much distress. Users have known about the closure for 5 months and there is only just over 2 months left before Quest closes and so have been worrying about this matter for a long time with no information to use in planning for care and support when Quest closes. Additionally in the local newspaper Staffordshire Newsletter Alan White (the appropriate cabinet member from the council) says that the council have conducted an 'extensive' consultation on the matter, in a later interview with BBC radio Stoke Mr White then admits that he hasn't consulted service users on this issue but instead consulted service providers. This lack of communication and miscommunication from the council does not show any respect to service users and is causing much upset. Users need to be involved in this process and supported to get the care they need when Quest is decommissioned as soon as possible.

The threat to neighbourhoods and businesses suffering this plague of development show planning rules to be far too heavily weighted in favour of developers. Local residents and businesses, ambushed by ambitious plans, are now often locked out of any consultation process - their rights ignored. Local councils, who they count on to represent their interests are increasingly unwilling to fund legal appeals against their own refusals of planning consent - so give in. Now, not only are homes and businesses put at risk but the quality of life of entire neighbourhoods is vandalised. Innocent property owners should not have to mortgage their livelihoods to fight off the life-style expansions imposed by their neighbours and absent developers. This is wrong and needs to change nationally and locally. Legislation needs to be introduced to persuade or nudge a change in the current property abusing culture. The weight needs to shift in favour of those who need protection against the bullying financial demands of those who assume they can continue, and afford, to override and out-finance their innocent neighbours and local councils and, thereby, impose their encroachments on others. Somehow, a wholesale review of this clash needs to address and reform this injustice, where local authorities decide in favour of developments, regardless, because they are financially restricted, particularly through expensive appeals processes, in affording the costs incurred, to protect their constituents who innocently assume such local authorities might act in their civil interests – many are now disillusioned. As Air Studios fights for its survival, there are other fights against basement plans, including those of the owners of Admiral’s House to safeguard the heritage of Hampstead against plans by the owners of Grove Lodge and the residents of New End to stave off a 3 basement development by the owners of 29 New End. Countless others abound around the country. Something needs to be done against the tyranny of unsuitable basement developments.

It is imperative in a democracy that the electorate are informed by a news media that is unbiased and can effectively present news in a balanced way. It is concerning that staff at the BBC are appearing to manipulate the news and it is vital that this publicly funded institution is not using its position to abuse the public trust. The revelations in a recent blog by BBC producer Andrew Alexander, was very clear about how staff at the Corporation manipulated news to “make an impact.” This resulted in a member of the Shadow Front Bench Stephen Doughty, resigning live on air during the Wednesday 6th January 2016 edition of The Daily Politics. The blog went on to express how staff were delighted to have seen how this story was brought up by the Prime Minister in his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition. “As Andrew Neil handed from the studio to the Commons chamber we took a moment to watch the story ripple out across news outlets and social media. Within minutes we heard David Cameron refer to the resignation during his exchanges with Jeremy Corbyn. "During our regular debrief after coming off air at 1pm we agreed our job is always most enjoyable when a big story is breaking – but even more so when it’s breaking on the programme” There is considerable disquiet that the BBC is not fulfilling its public duty to report the news in a fair and balanced way. This has come to the fore since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of The Labour Party. This blog by Andrew Alexander will cause concern everyone who cares about the unbiased reporting of the news.

Too many areas of service are being or have been run by G4S and rarely has any company had such spectacular failings yet they still win contracts

An innocent man should have the right to return to work. Any company acting the way Bauer has done deserves all there sponsors to find there products being boycott by he general public.

Because the legacy and reputation built over the years that make the BBC one of the most credible media organisations on the planet, was done so with public funding. This legacy should therefore not be in the hands of profit driven organisations that would only destroy it after cashing in on our investment.

Many residents who do not have IT equipment or do not read the local papers will be disenfranchised. That is not democratic and is not proper consultation by Camden. There are other options available including requiring applicants to pay for the cost of sending these letters to neighbours. Please sign this petition if you agree and please provide your own comments to Camden on the reasons why you do not want them to remove paper notifications of planning applications. I will send the petition and comments to Camden before 16 January, 2016. There is an online survey (www.camden.gov.uk/sci) and comments can also be sent to [email protected] or residents can write to Camden at Development management, Camden Town Hall, Judd Street, WC1H8ND.

If there is no independent organisation with sufficient resources and confidence to investigate and report on institutions doing work on behalf of the government and, eventually, of the people of this country, then we are one step closer to a totalitarian state. If no-one independent can say that something is wrong, then all we have is the mantra that 'the authorities can do no wrong'.

We are told that Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) will create jobs and lower your energy prices. While this is extremely debatable and has been discredited by many authorities, there are many other environmental and economic facts to be considered. The detrimental effects of Fracking are well documented. Some of the key facts are as follows: Fracking increases local air pollution An increase in risk of pollution to local drinking water supplies Possible Risks of seismic activity Threatens natural habitats Fracking generates massive amounts of greenhouse gases Investments in Fracking blocks the development of renewable energy Increased traffic on roads from site vehicles Potential to lower the value of your house if located near a site for the above reasons Scotland, France and Germany have already banned Fracking. Please help give your support by signing this petition to let the local government that Amber Valley's constituents wish it to remain a Frack free area. Please also see details of our first meeting here: https://www.facebook.com/events/568058916702507/ Or here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/events/fracking-in-amber-valley

Park Road Allotment site is the last remaining part of Old Isleworth that is undeveloped. It offers the local community a much needed tranquil location in an otherwise urban setting. There have been allotment gardens on the site since at least 1915. Public Health England recognises the therapeutic benefits of gardening for people’s mental and physical well-being. The benefits of the site are not confined just to individual plot holders. • It is a wildlife haven: The site supports bats, newts, frogs, dragonflies, butterflies and too many birds to name. These creatures, once commonplace are increasingly rare in urban areas. • It has a major role in the production and promotion of biodiversity; plants and fruit trees depend on insects to pollinate them in order for there to be good crops. The site offers an abundant source of nectar rich plants for bees and butterflies. • The reduction of waste to landfill through composting, recycling and reusing materials. • There are learning opportunities for people of all ages who want to develop new skills and adopt a healthy lifestyle, supported through an active community garden and small garden for the local nursery school. Parents and grandparents bring children to the site; they are the next generation of gardeners. • It’s a space where children can be children; they can build camps, play pretend, weed and water their patches and be so exhausted they are asleep by 7pm. • With the increasing propensity for apartments with no individual garden space, it offers much needed outdoor space where it is possible to do more than sit and picnic. • The site forms part of the historic setting for the 600 year old All Saint’s Church. Once this tiny remaining part of Old Isleworth has been concreted over, it will be lost for all future generations. It is worth saving for everyone, now and in the future.

Right now, thanks to the selfless sacrifice of others, people all over the world every day at this very second are undergoing an organ transplant to save their lives but this is only part of a life long battle to stay alive. If you are one of those lucky enough to survive the transplant and the recovery period (which includes avoiding a number of complications, battling to prevent rejection, and in some cases hoping the disease doesn't take hold). In order to survive transplant patients have to take a variety of anti-rejection drugs every single day, drugs that they will take until the day they die. Transplant patients have no choice but to take the medication, without it they die. I know this because I am one of those transplant patients. After fighting through a period of ill health I recently felt well enough to get on with my life and I started work. The excitement of a new job was short lived when I found I had to start paying high prescription charges for the very medication I need to prevent my body from rejecting my transplant organ. I do not have a choice over taking this medication, it is literally life or death. I contacted my local MP and sent a letter to the Department for Health. The reply I received was simple: The medical exemption list was put together in 1968 and there are no plans to review this list. To me this is wrong. In 1968 there was no where near the amount of transplants as there are today and by not reviewing the list the Government are saying they do not care that people are forced to pay for life dependent medication. This is not good enough. In 2008 the Government promised to make prescriptions free for all those with long-term conditions in the coming years, however this has been scrapped by the current Government. However with enough signatures we can get the issue back on the agenda and make politicians answer to why they think it fair that transplant patients (who did not ask to be ill) pay prescription charges for life in order to survive.

The government's promise to provide greater numbers of "affordable housing" sounds good, the problem is that these homes are just not affordable to most people wishing to purchase their first home. Re-defining "affordable housing" to housing that can actually be afforded by families earning the national living wage would mean that these homes that the government has legislated could be bought by families who are currently priced out of ever buying their first home. With the erosion of social housing a growing problem, and for families not fortunate enough to have higher incomes and large deposits, many new and young families in particular are at the mercy of profiteering private landlords. Keeping the current requirements for affordable housing by developers, but making it realistically affordable, might start to address this problem.