Because people are prosecuted every year for using a plant that has a zero death rate.

We need to get more people using the local facilities in the centre of taunton, which included a municipal golf course and a lawns bowling green. For many of the older users this is the only chance they get to socialise/exercise with people of there own age group.

If this country is going to be economically successful then it is vital to ensure that people who need it, have a support system in place to take care of them at their greatest time of need. People do not choose to be ill or disabled, therefore it makes no sense to penalise these people, either morally or economically. During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke a great deal about his disabled son, who is now, very sadly no longer with us, therefore, I cannot believe that such a person adopts policies which takes vital support money away from this group of people. To any sensible economist this flies in the face of what normal conventional wisdom tells you should be done when an economy is in trouble. Having studied micro macro and global economics, I am aware that conventional wisdom, and common sense dictates that you adopt a spending policy in order to help the country to recover. After all one mans spending money is another man's wages. Another reason this system must be abolished now is that there are more than one million appeal cases pending. The success rate of these appeals indicates that by far the majority of the people who claim these benefits are people who are in genuine need. Finally, I think it is an absolute disgrace that the hardworking doctors, nurses and GP's are having their diagnosis and medical notes questioned in this way, which is very disrespectful and shows a lack of gratitude for the fantastic work they do, without which none of us would be here. This action represents privatisation of the Benefit system and the NHS back the back door as the result of employing a profit making American company, whose employees are paid bonuses for achieving their target figures of refusing or denying the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country access to money which they need just to fulfill their basic needs, and meet their most basic human rights of having enough money to feed themselves and any family they may have, warmth and shelter. Therefore, for the sake of the recovery of the economy, and the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, I would implore you to abolish this unworkable system immediately.

Willie McRae was a Scottish naval officer, lawyer, politician and activist involved in numerous campaigns. At the time of his death, he was under constant surveillance by MI5/Special Branch. Retired policeman Donald Morrison (on duty at the time) saw them following Willie on a Friday afternoon - he was found the following morning with a fatal gunshot to the head. In the weeks leading up to Willie's death Donald saw files being removed from Willie's office and taken to a police station to be copied. This was done without Willie's knowledge. Had Willie died at his place of work, while under arrest, or in prison, a Fatal Accident Inquiry would have been mandatory. Willie McRae’s mistake was to die while under highly aggressive surveillance by MI5/Special Branch. In addition to Donald's testimony the Scotland on Sunday recently discovered the following a- The car was removed from the scene and then taken back b- Witness statements were fabricated c- The official suicide verdict was released prior to completion of the ballistics report. An inquiry has been avoided by multiple Lords Advocate since 1985. Not holding an inquiry under these circumstances makes a mockery of the Scottish judiciary. It also leads many people to believe that our Crown Office lacks the teeth and/or the inclination to hold UK Security Services to account for their activity on Scottish soil. Put simply, many don’t believe that Willie committed suicide, and others are undecided. One thing we are all in agreement with, however, is that there are sufficient unanswered questions to warrant a long overdue FAI.

Governments around the world seem to more interested in preserving their economic links in arms and oil trade with them than standing up for the horrific human rights abuses that this country continues to perpetrate. https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/03/saudi-arabia-in-ten-brutal-facts/ The world shouts loud about wanting to stop ISIS but according to a US memo leak Saudi donors constituted “the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide”, so are we in effect supporting ISIS by continuing trade with Saudi Arabia? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism

Working families are juggling work/family responsibilities to try and keep expensive childcare costs down. These time- and work-pressures impact massively upon personal wellbeing and worker productivity. Free, work-based childcare would show the company was progressive, forward-thinking and family-orientated. Practically, it would reduce travel time between alternative providers and the workplace, avoid any unplanned absence to cover childcare issues, prevent employees looking for better-paid jobs elsewhere to cover increasing childcare costs and would drastically improve working-parent motivation, well-being, loyalty to the employer and productivity. This kind of service would 'keep families together' and would truly reflect employer ambitions to promote a real work-life balance.

Overturning the RTO would mean a return to rat-running cars that speed through and pollute our streets. Recent figures show that the number of cars driving through the town centre is down by at least 50%, whilst total car parking figures are virtually unchanged. We believe that this historic town has now become a far more pleasant and healthier place for shoppers, visitors and residents. (Photo shows the current relaxed ambience that attracts hundreds to the High Street)

The people of this country would have more faith in our political system if politicians were held to account in this way. The distinction between parties would become clearer. We would achieve genuine, much needed, political reform. It would minimise those individuals using our political system for their own financial gain thus reducing corruption.

LFTR is a safe and zero carbon form of electrical power generation. With sufficient investment, this form of power can be cheaper than coal whilst also being so much safer and better for the environment (bearing in mind coal already produces more radioactive waste than current nuclear power reactors) Compared to renewables, LFTRs require much less land than wind or solar for the same power generation, resulting in greater land area for trees or planting crops (e.g. biofuels) LFTR is liquid and requires no water coolant, whilst also being safer as a solid plug will melt during a meltdown so all of the radioactive material escapes to an underground casing protecting the environment. The waste produced has a shorter half-life so is radioactive for less time, and the waste is very difficult to turn into nuclear weapons. However, since the half life is so great, the radiation will be pretty much harmless. The reactor can be controlled a lot better, as the atoms have neutron shot at them in a canon, so in an emergency the neutron canon is shut off, so the reactor can be controlled and stopped a lot faster than the current Uranium Fast breed reactor. Nuclear Power also saves lives. Coal kills over 15,000 per trillion kWh produced in the US alone. That figure increases over 10 fold in China. Currently, Nuclear only kills 90 people per trillion kWh produced, which is lower than all forms of renewables http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Many investors from 2007 were conned into buying properties that were fraudulently over-valued by third party professionals, including property developers, panel surveyors, mortgage brokers and conveyancing solicitors, all part of a scam to fleece money from high street lending institutions. The high street lenders have repossessed many of the properties which have so far seen millions of pounds lost in shortfalls on the original mortgages. These shortfalls have been 'lost' in the accounts of the Lloyds Group and UK tax-payers should be told in detail how much all this amounts to and what steps the group has taken to recover these shortfalls. Lloyds has protected itself by repossessing the houses of the investors who fell foul of what a member of Lloyds' Chief Executive Team termed as a 'scam', in a letter to one investor, it then repossessed. The investor had written to challenge the bank's conduct in the whole saga that saw three of her properties re-possessed to the tune of £530,000. In its reply, the bank's official wrote: 'I disagree that BoS should be accountable for the shortfall as we were also victims of the scam.' There are at least 22 properties in the north and north-west of England, which were all over-valued by between £100,000 and £150,000, involving investors that have been forced into repossession. Third-party professionals used by Lloyds on a daily basis have fleeced the group for millions. Lloyds meanwhile, has been able to 'write off' these 'bad debts' with no comeback or explanation on its behaviour. British taxpayers shored up the ailing Lloyds Group, following the disastrous and scandalous way it operated its business in the lead up to the 'credit crunch' in 2008. The public need to know exactly how the losses - in the region of £3.2 million - from this 'scam' were reported and whether Lloyds reported the 'scam' to the Police or any of the financial watchdogs and authorities. Bank of Scotland were made aware of the 'scam' in May 2008. It is now December 2017 and the Lloyds Group has not addressed any of the questions raised by investors about its handling of the situation and hides behind jargon, data protection and its solicitors, Eversheds. In the meantime, Lloyds continues to hand out 'performance' bonuses in the tens of millions to a raft of senior management, whilst it has taken no action in delving into the 'scam' that it said it was a 'victim' of. How shameful that it has not had the decency to work with the investors/borrowers involved in the 'scam' it too was involved in, other than to repossess their homes and push them into untold stress and misery! Come clean Bank of Scotland - face up to the situation like the rest of us do when times get tough!

Residents are concerned about the effect on their health and wellbeing of demolition and construction work on the site taking place over the next 20 years. In particular, we note that there is asbestos contained in Earls Court Exhibition Centre One building and that its removal (particularly from the roof and external walls) could represent a major threat to residents' health. It is particularly important to carry out a review now, as there are reports of plans for increased density on the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity area which will have a major impact and have not been assessed. The assessment should consider all the risks to health and wellbeing which include pollution, traffic congestion, noise and vibration, air quality and asbestos removal. Local residents, business owners, workers, trade union branches and tenants associations must be consulted on who carries out the independent assessment and its terms of reference. The health review should be: completely open, transparent, independent and comprehensive with all documents made public. Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham Council to hold public hearings where local residents can present their own evidence about the health risks and decisions on the findings of the assessment take place in public. Campaign created by Guy Rubin, Green Party candidate for Chelsea and Fulham, David Akan, Green Party candidate for Hammersmith, Robina Rose, Green Party candidate for Kensington.

Nurseries who have children with additional needs can apply for funding to provide that child with additional support such as a one-to-one. Funding was applied for in advance of the term so the setting secured finances to employ staff as required. However from the summer term 2015 the panel will not be held until much later in the term, this term it will be June. This puts not only a financial burden on the nursery to provide the support necessary but there is a financial risk as it is not guaranteed that funding will be granted or they might not receive the level of funding applied for. Therefore nurseries might decide they can no longer offer places to children with additional needs. My 4 year old son has Downs Syndrome and has one-to-one Support as he is not verbal and communicates with sign. He also has no concept of danger and will run if he senses freedom so to have that allocated adult to supervise him is essential. However his nursery is a charity and doesn't really have the spare funds or profit to employ staff for most of a term and the financial risk of having children with additional needs must be a factor for their future. We have friends who have children with additional needs who had issues with the level of support their child has as the nursery have not been able to secure the full level of funding. If nurseries feel unable to offer places to children with additional needs then they miss out on valuable experiences and friendships with their peers and preparation for transition into school. Children in the nursery miss out on the joy of interacting with diverse abilities and experiences. Parents of children with additional needs miss out on important down time to recharge and get things done. The only benefit is keeping money in the council coffers for a few months. At what cost I ask! Please take the time to sign so all children can access nursery in Norfolk.