Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? Not all governments are hell bent on fracking - far from it. There are bans or moratoriums on fracking in France, Germany, many American states, and at least twelve other countries worldwide. And there are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Burnley we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Burnley frack free?

Unconventional gas exploitation - "fracking" - is a ridiculous idea. The Government's arguments used to justify fracking are as follows: That it will create jobs, that it’ll bring down energy bills, that it’s good for our energy security and it's a transition fuel to a green energy economy. 1. That it will create jobs. A Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC) report estimated a maximum of 24,300 of them. Yet 400,000 jobs could be created by 2020 by investment in the clean energy sector. 2. That it’ll bring down energy bills like it has in the US. But the UK’s geology is more complex than in the US, which means that the process here will be uneconomic. Even if that wasn’t the case, unlike the US, the UK exports gas as part of a European gas market, and as fracking companies will sell to the highest bidder of these European countries, there could never be a guarantee that UK energy users would be the beneficiaries. So the argument about not importing from Russia doesn't stand! 3. That it’s good for our energy security A House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommendation was that shale gas should not be relied on to contribute to energy security. An energy security expert has said the best way to reduce energy security risks is to promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand. 4. A transition fuel to a green energy economy. Department for Energy and Climate Change-commissioned report on fracking’s greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be based on poor data and exaggeration. When the actual figures are factored-in, the report shows that burning shale gas to produce electricity is about as bad as, or very possibly even worse than burning coal! The arguments against fracking are so numerous: The UK’s geology is too complex for fracking to be safe or economic. The UK’s geography means we don’t have America’s wide open spaces away from the population or agriculture. Water contamination. The UN has listed seven different ways this can occur. The huge quantities of water required. The carcinogenic properties of the chemicals used. Air pollution. Earthquakes. Industrialisation of countryside and loss of agricultural land to roads, well-pads, pipelines, compressor stations and so on. Traffic/chemical spills/noise and light pollution. Impact on tourism. Even if none of the above applied this doesn’t discount the big one – climate change. A growing number of climate change scientists are recognising that to have any chance of us staying below the two degree increase in global temperature that is required to avoid catastrophic climate change, we have to leave 80% of all already discovered fossil fuels in the ground. So why does this government want to find more of the stuff if we can’t burn it? There are attractive alternatives, particularly for the UK as we have the best renewable energy resources in Europe. That’s where our energy security is - and the 400,000 jobs to get our economy back on track. A policy of support for fracking is a vote-loser. As elected representatives of Rossendale we the community call on you to say no to fracking and yes to keeping Rossendale and Darwenfrack free?

In a written parliamentary answer earlier this month, Duncan Smith’s junior welfare minister, Justin Tomlinson, said they expect claims to be made online. The government’s universal credit website, however, advertised the phone number. An increasing majority of people do not use a landline phone, especially those on low incomes due to the higher fixed costs than owning a mobile phone. This new number is directly prohibitive to some of the most vulnerable claimants in the country and is a new cost hurdle for people in dire need. Along with this almost 6 million British adults have never been on line, with many more with no or limited access to the internet, again from the most vulnerable sections of society. Once again, Iain Duncan-Smith is playing with the lives of Britain's downtrodden, putting Universal Credit out of reach for those that need it most. Credit it the Guardian for the article that forms the basis of this petition (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/iain-duncan-smith-refuses-to-set-up-freephone-for-families-claiming-benefits)

Homelessness in Maidstone continues to rise under the Tory government. The period from 2010 to the end of quarter three 2015 saw a more than tenfold increase in the number of households defined as homeless, from 12 to 157. This rise in recognised cases, along with the sevenfold increase in applications for help, shows a growing issue and a need for determined action to combat the situation. Despite these concerning statistics, the Council have undertaken a consultation, which closed on January 25th 2016, on a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). This would effectively criminalise homelessness, by making it illegal to sleep rough within areas of Maidstone town centre. Meanwhile planned developments to build new homes continue to move forward, but only 15-30% of new homes will form ‘affordable’ housing. Affordable rent can be classified anywhere up to 80% of the market value of the property. The average private rent for two bedrooms in Maidstone in 2014/2015 was £745 a month. As it is widely accepted that rent should take no more than 30% of your monthly income a two person household requires a joint income of £2000 per month, the equivalent of £32,000 per year, to meet 80% of this cost. Projects such as the Winter Shelter, run by local churches and charities, are helping to alleviate the symptoms of this increasingly desperate situation. However, more must be done at a local government and national level to deliver on the causes of escalating private rents, and a lack of council owned social housing.

We all make mistakes If we are tired we make more mistakes If we are exhausted we make even more mistakes If the management of an organization fails to provide sufficient staff for the work to be done without staff getting overtired or exhausted then the managers must share the responsibility for mistakes made. It was a fine idea to set up our NHS so that UK citizens could share the cost of healthcare for each other. But it is clear that the NHS is now understaffed both on the basis of percentage of GDP spent on it and the numbers of staff per 1000 members of the population by comparison with European countries comparable to the UK. The manager of the NHS is effectively Parliament as represented by its members. Parliament's MPs must be held partly responsible for errors within the NHS if funding for sufficient staff is not provided.

It's a chance for some fans who weren't able to make it to the show to see them perform and it means a lot for some people to be able to see them in concert because they idol them and it would be amazing to let fans have another chance to see them.

You have explained that the administration running Fife council are scaremongering over the scale of the cuts to the council budget and the likely impact. To ensure we can protect local services such as libraries and education we need to see both sides of the arguments. Publishing the SNP budget will allow Fifers to engage in the debate and have a say on the future of our services.

Fatima Naoot's case should never have made it to court. It suggests the state is turning a blind eye to the advocates of religious extremism. As for the nature of the religious festival Fatima criticized - I won't upset you with the details. But if you want further information, Google the following: Eid al-Adha animal sacrifice More info here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-courts-poet-idUSKBN0L121M20150128

The principle of reciprocity currently seems violated by those refusing to pay what they are due whilst taking full advantage of their right to have their voice heard in how the nation is governed; seemingly undermining the principles of a democratic nation. Depriving tax dodgers of their right to vote may help tackle this trend, whilst adding to the national treasury, which seemingly fits in with the intent of current austerity programmes.

The scoring of children in their first weeks on entry to their new schools: -Is Damaging for children and inappropriate practice at an important transition time -Will undermine the current methods of assessment and practice used in early years settings -Will not improve the quality of schools -Is not a reliable source of data -Will lead to a further formalisation of learning in the early years and downgrading of play -Transfers funding from school budgets to private companies -Prevents the local education authority from having an active role in overviewing and monitoring assessments in the early years across the county and places this role directly into the hands of the private assessment providers and the DFE. We call on the Borough Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education calling for the removal of Baseline Assessment and the retention of the existing Early Years Foundation Stage Profile in our schools. We also call on the Borough Council to support any school that chooses not to implement the Baseline assessment. Reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35549611

It is a simple fact of economics that if demand increases without a corresponding increase in supply then market forces will drive up prices. Our countries inability to build enough homes for the growing population is well documented. What is not so well documented is that the governments various schemes to help first time buyers onto the housing ladder simply exacerbate the problem of high house prices. The schemes may be welcomed by those in or near a position to buy their first home, but in the long run all the schemes do is drive house prices higher. Exorbitant house prices force a growing percentage of the population into private rental. As house prices increase private rental costs also increase, which in turn makes it far more difficult for those renting to build the deposit required to own a home. Those renting are forced to save a far larger percentage of their disposable income in order to build their deposit; and this of course relies on there being any disposable income left to save. Reports this week suggest that the average first-time buyer will have already spent £50000 on rent. With all this money being saved by those looking to build a deposit, there is less and less money being put back into the economy. The growing percentage of the country who are building a deposit will be eating out less, limiting their purchase of luxury goods and generally saving money wherever possible. There is a concept known as the velocity of money that effectively states that the faster money moves around the faster the economy grows; money sat in savings accounts is stagnant and does very little for the economy. The upshot of this is that growth of the economy is limited, which in turn limits the number of jobs paying a decent wage, which in turn forces more of the population to rely on taxpayer funded benefits. Less taxpayers money would be required to fund benefits if there were more jobs paying a living salary. The money made available by the reduced reliance on benefits could be used to increase funding for the NHS, reduce the tax burden on the population, make higher education free again, and many other causes. In short, it is my opinion that a large number of the problems facing this country could be resolved if the government truly committed to investing in a long-term infrastructure and house building program rather than wasting taxpayer money driving up the cost of already exorbitant house prices. This is a policy that would fairly benefit the whole country rather than just a few.

Anyone who has been admitted to hospital is aware of the vital role that junior doctors play in maintaining a health service open to all. Demoralise and demonise the junior doctors and the BMA and not only will a great many of our doctors be driven out of public service, but the NHS will start to fragment. We will end up with a privatised health service with access determined by income. Please do not let this happen.