https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tky42vHUHlI Just 6 months after granting a Tree Preservation Order on this London Plane Tree, Mendip has received an application to fell. Unfortunately the TPO will not save the tree from Pangmore Development's application if approved by Mendip District Council. This is one of the last trees in the town centre and certainly the last tree of note in the Kingsway precinct. It is a specimen town centre tree and plays a major contribution in the character of the Conservation Area, and its felling would be a major loss to the aesthetic quality of the town.

Carers are classed as unemployed yet they get payed less than current unemployed levels. Carers work 24/7 without recognition, Carers at a minimum, need to receive the same amount of Benefits as the unemployed and refine their roles as employed with all rights. Care payments are also taxable so they should be given the same rights as anyone that is working and the same support regardless of their ability to have another Job along with being a care giver. For many caring for someone that has a disability is a 24/7 Job with no holiday pay and no other way of gaining an income. Being a Carer receiving £61.35 a wk whilst the unemployed receive £72.50. As a Carer on £61.35 wk we have to pay our own eye tests and prescriptions, the unemployed don't!! It costs over £500 wk to look after someone in Care but home Carers receive £61.35 wk. Carers save the economy more than £120billion yr but Carers only receive £61.35 wk. Why don't you allow a Carer some Airtime? Lets also be very clear on the Carers Allowance, its a deduction of Benefits the person Being Cared for would normally receive, so in real terms I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul( no pun intended) Its a mockery of the system and abuse of situation. Thousands are giving up work to look after a loved one. We also have over 800.000 kids who receive nothing for the caring they provide whilst missing out on growing up as a child should, enjoying a childhood. Again this wont get Airtime unless we take our concerns directly to those responsible. This Government must stop paying lip service to Carers, they are a vital to the Economy. The SNP have now committed to this.

Banks and financial institutions can make millions from risky speculations. However, when these go wrong, as happened in 2008, billions of pounds of public money were used to bail out the banks and save them from the consequences of their risk taking. Since the 2008 crash the total paid in bonuses will this year pass through the £80bn barrier – some three and a half times the amount banks have paid in Corporation tax and the bank levy – and equates to around £1,250 for every man, woman and child in the Britain. This Tax is not intended to be punitive: nicknamed the "Robin Hood Tax" it is, like the folk hero, intended to redistribute wealth and help those in difficulty. If we, the public and the tax payers, must share the financial risks of banks' trading then it seems simply fair that, at other times, we should also receive some benefit. This money can be distributed and spent to the benefit of all - in the UK, abroad and for the environment.

If the population increases and grows, it would be ideal to make the possible train service to those who want it back, that's if the people petition to have the old lines reopened, SELRAP have also done their part too for the Colne-Skipton rail line.

The evidence for human-induced climate change is compelling*. What we need now is action. But without the political will this won't happen; and without popular support there will be no political will. Much power and responsibility therefore rests with the media: to inform the public appropriately so that we are able to demand - and give support for - the required responses to our growing planetary predicament. While editors' acknowledgement of a range of views is to be applauded, the issue of climate change is of such critical importance that efforts must be made now to prevent those who are neither qualified nor objective from dominating and prolonging unproductive debates over its extent and significance. Instead it is time to open up important and interesting discussions about what we must now do; not just about what we can do as volunteers or at grassroots level, but about what must happen at policy level to ensure that the myriad imaginative and constructive grassroots initiatives already underway are properly supported, economically and legally; about what is required to ensure that appropriate national level initiatives are enabled and implemented; and about the options for ensuring that activities and businesses that perpetuate the damage are penalised and constrained. There is an abundance of constructive responses to climate change and ecosystem degradation, across a variety of sectors, most of which are rarely mentioned in mainstream media. Discussion of such options and their relative merits could enliven programming schedules for years to come. For example, industrial agriculture is responsible for between 14 and 24% of greenhouse gas emissions globally** (as well as for destroying vast tracts of healthy soil and contaminating fresh waterways). Yet there are other approaches to producing our food: carbon farming, eco-agriculture and agroforestry to name a few, some of which sequester carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil, as well as produce food. These approaches are supported neither by subsidies nor tax policies; while the destructive models are. Surely this merits discussion. Alternatives to carbon intensive methods exist also for energy production, for building, for water catchment management, and for transportation. Policies, legislation and economic constructs to support such alternatives are available and implemented in other countries***, yet in the UK, tax-payers' money still subsidises destructive models. Shouldn't these be the issues under debate? Shouldn't the public be informed as to the alternatives and the possibilities for where their hard-earned money is spent, and how these decisions affect their environment, their food and water, their climate, and their children's future? We believe that providing such properly informed and forward-looking coverage is an absolute imperative, and this is why we are calling on all media organisations to take their responsibilities to us all and to the planet seriously. Notes * From NASA: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position" - http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus . A list of further resources summarising the evidence can be found here: http://www.desmogblog.com/is-climate-change-real From The Guardian, 14 February 2014: "Flooding and storms in UK are clear signs of climate change, says Lord Stern" - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/flooding-storms-uk-climate-change-lord-stern?CMP=twt_gu ** As reported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): http://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/global-agriculture-emissions/ *** There are many examples. Here are a couple. Uruguay is expecting to generate 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2234025/uruguay-set-to-become-world-leader-in-wind-power In 2013, wind power alone produced more than 30% of Denmark's gross power consumption: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/12/postcard-from-the-future-122-wind-power-in-denmark For comparison: renewables contribution to UK electricity generation was 11.3% in 2012 - https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/national-renewables-statistics/ Image: Brockweir, on the Wye estuary, 2014. Courtesy: Dave Throup/Environment Agency.

There is a clear need for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to embark on a Public Information Campaign that actively seeks to: Improve public understanding of Climate Science Illustrate the implications of Climate Change Effectively communicate the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --- The realities of climate change are clear and present. Experts in the field of climate science have published their findings time and time again, and there are very few dissenting voices against the consensus view. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, human influence on the climate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the key conclusions from an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/press_release_wg1_full_report.pdf These opening words from the IPCC press release announcing the online publication of its full report ‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis’, are utterly unambiguous. An international endeavour comprising the work of hundreds of climate scientists, prepared with the assistance of more than a thousand expert reviewers, and citing over 9000 publications, the report leaves no doubt as to the reality of climate change. The scientific consensus is not fully reflected in the wider population, however. A recent report from the UK Energy Research Centre suggests that public scepticism towards climate change has actually risen in recent years and that people are now less concerned about its potential impact than previously (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=3514 - pdf download - survey conducted March 2013). The flooding crisis of the last few weeks has re-ignited a national debate on climate change, centred around the question of whether the spate of storms that contributed heavily to rising floodwaters could be attributed to climate change. But it has been clear that there is a large degree of misunderstanding on the topic, as well as a certain amount of misrepresentation. Some of the views on display in the national media are not just a rejection that the extensive flooding may have been caused by climate change, but are rejections of the very idea of climate change as a whole. Such sentiments are rare, but come from highly prominent political individuals. Of most concern is that they are people who are not experts in the field, but have still been given equal weight to their arguments. The issue of climate change is not one of political opinion, but of scientific fact. The Department of Energy and Climate Change should begin a program of public information releases that relay the message that climate scientists and many non-governmental organisations have been imparting for a number of years. We have seen instances of public information campaigns regarding health, safety, and security concerns in a wide range of areas. It is high-time that climate change was given the attention it requires.

There's an obesity crisis. Despite the premature deaths of millions in the UK from obesity-related illnesses, shoppers still can't make healthy choices - because foods are full of stealth sugars, which don't appear clearly on the labels.

We run the risk that young people in particular will be so protected from risk that they don't grow up having "tested the boundaries". Since 1985 the Marlborough Brandt Group, a small charity in Marlborough Wiltshire, has sent over 1000 young people from our secondary schools to live with families and work in our link community of Gunjur in The Gambia, West Africa alongside young Gambians. All of these young people have benefited from this experience in terms of their personal and professional development and their understanding of the world beyond their community. Health and safety now dictates that a) we spend large sums of our charitable money for insurance cover b) large amounts of time conducting a risk analysis, which is almost meaningless in a rural African context and c) we consider stopping the programme and thus depriving young people of an extraordinary life-changing experience. This is a national issue and must be debated or our young in UK will be deprived a proper, well-rounded education.

In November 2013, a Prison Service instruction removed metal stringed electric and acoustic guitars from the list of permitted prisoner possessions. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-30-2013.doc At the same time, access to arts materials for purchase by prisoners has become more restricted by the limited items available through approved suppliers. And when an order is placed, the delay in receiving materials is often protracted. One of the effects of linking prison education funding to vocational targets is the loss of much of the non-accredited arts programme; dramatic arts have particularly suffered. Prison staff are often not sensitive to the value of creative art work to prisoners and have removed art and writing from the possession of prisoners without explanation. These are not isolated events but are indicative of the need for the Ministry of Justice to reconsider the value of the arts in prison. Prisoners are full of creativity. You only need to look at the success of the Koestler awards to see that. But many prisoners actually rely on their creative outlets just to cope with life. There are many recent studies which have shown how participation in the arts can be a life-changing experience for prisoners. Not only do the arts support prisoner welfare but they can also provide a pathway to change, enabling growth of self-esteem and helping to combat depression. In this respect, the arts should be seen as a cornerstone of the rehabilitation process. The people who are most affected by these changes have no voice. Prisoners are unable to sign this petition or campaign for change. But you can. Please do. You can make a real difference to their lives. "I've had a guitar in my cell ever since my first days in custody and it really helps me cope with my sentence. It's a really creative and educational outlet. I'm still improving and I've even written my own compositions. I don't know what I'll do when they take it off me. It's going to leave me feeling very down. There are a lot of poor copers in prison. What are we supposed to do?” Nathan, HMP Wakefield Further discussion of these issues by a serving prisoner: http://adammac.co.uk/2014/02/20/arts-under-attack/

The effect of the floods and storms of recent days on Spelthorne have proven to those who live and work here the very real need for our existing fire and rescue services to be maintained. The firefighters in both Staines and Sunbury have been working flat out to provide essential rescue services, as have those from the surrounding boroughs.

The recent flooding in Southern England and Wales has highlighted the need for a more holistic approach to flood management, rather than blocking with sandbags and concrete. Reintroducing managed ditches to control standing water that work alongside hedgerows will also prevent soil erosion. Not only will it create valuable habitats for the dwindling song bird population, it would help increase biodiversity as a whole, and create a more permanent source of sustainable employment through the reintroduction of traditional rural crafts.

So far a residents association has collected 700 signatures from the immediate area and it is necessary to escalate this to allow a greater response to this ill-advised proposal by a Council that has no interest in listening to its residents.