By 2050 our oceans will contain more plastic than fish. We can create a change and our daily actions are a vital part of reducing this devastating plastic pollution. However, for many of us students, this is a continual battle. Due to a lack of facilities on campus we are sometimes faced with no alternatives but to use single-use plastics. We believe that businesses, charities and large organisations have a larger impact than one individual. These organisations should be taking this responsibility on board too and prioritising it. We want our SU to listen to this strong student voice, deliver the change we want and phase out all single use plastic by 2020.

SAVE OUR LOCAL X-RAY UNIT: PLEASE SIGN BELOW The RSCH Trust that manages community services had decided to close the X-Ray unit at Milford Hospital at the end of March. Patients were to be referred to a new unit at Cranleigh instead. There was no consultation with any interested parties. Following a vigorous protest by the League of Friends, those proposals have been put on hold pending wider discussions. The LoF wants full public consultation and is recommending that the Milford unit not only stays but is open longer hours (currently 3hrs/day) and that the Cranleigh unit should be in addition to, not at the expense of, the much valued unit at Milford. Over 5000 patients a year ( both in and out patients) use the X-Ray unit at Milford (at the current 3 hours a day opening hours), giving an indication of the great need for this X-Ray unit to remain open.

Investing in carbon-intensive industries contributes to global warming and is contradictory to Wandsworth Council’s published commitment to “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Local governments have a moral duty and legal obligation to act for the public good to protect the global and local environment. Continuing to invest in fossil fuel industries is a blatant disregard of these duties. As it currently stands, the London Borough of Wandsworth pension fund has has £137,628,569 invested, directly and indirectly, in fossil fuel industries. Proven fossil fuel reserves (2,795 gigatons of CO2) exceed the total carbon budget we are able to burn (565 gigatons) by a factor of five. As these ‘proven’ reserves have been factored into the share price of the fossil fuel companies already, this represents a serious overvaluing of these companies’ share prices. The unusable fossil fuel reserves run a high risk of becoming a ‘stranded’ or worthless asset and a poor investment. The size of this ‘carbon bubble’ has been estimated at $4 trillion. By investing public money in assets that cannot be realised in the future due to stringent policy and legal restrictions; the current approach is financially irresponsible and likely to breach fiduciary duties. There are ethical, environmental and economic imperatives for the council to divest from fossil fuels immediately and re-invest in sustainable funds.

It is important for our City that we no longer allow buildings to either crumble or be burned down, as the last two listed buildings have found their fate. In my view we have lost too many of our buildings that have represented the skyline of our City.

Climate change is happening. We can choose to take urgent action now, to protect our children’s future. To keep global warming below 1.5°C we must operate within a global carbon budget. Everyone must contribute. North Somerset Council must contribute by declaring a climate emergency and committing to be carbon neutral by 2030. North Somerset Green, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Independent Councillors have submitted a motion calling on North Somerset Council to declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ and pledge to make North Somerset carbon neutral by 2030. A decision will be made by your councillors at the full council meeting, 6pm on the 19th February. Sign this petition now, email your councillor asking them to support it, and join us outside the town hall from 5:30pm on 19th Feb to show our support. Find your councillor at: http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/my-council/councillors/councillor/find-your-councillors/find-my-local-councillors/ The motion says: This council recognises: 1. The challenge and threat of climate change to residents and global community. 2. That to keep global warming below 1.5°C we must operate within a global carbon budget. In order to reduce the chance of runaway Global Warming and limit the effects of Climate Breakdown, we need to reduce our CO2eq (carbon equivalent) emissions from their current average of 6.5 tonnes per person per year to less than 2 tonnes as soon as possible. 3. Individuals cannot be expected to make this reduction on their own. Society needs to change its laws, taxation and infrastructure, to make low carbon living easier. 4. North Somerset Council has already shown foresight and leadership when it comes to addressing the issue of climate change, having reduced CO2 emissions by 28.5% between 2005 - 2015 and setting a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the equivalent of 5.8 tonnes per person, to 2.9 tonnes per person by 2035. (1) 5. Unfortunately, current plans and actions are not enough. The world is on track to overshoot the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit before 2050 (2). The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming (3) describes the enormous harm that a 2°C rise is likely to cause compared to a 1.5°C rise, and told us that limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C may still be possible with ambitious action from national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector and local communities. 6. Councils around the UK and the world are responding by declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ and committing resources to address this emergency. (4) This council will: 1. Declare that it recognises a ‘Climate Emergency’. 2. Take active steps to make North Somerset carbon neutral by 2030, taking into account both production and consumption emissions (5) . 3. Call on Westminster to provide the powers and resources to make the 2030 target possible. 4. Set up a cross-party Working Group to bring forward proposals and work with partners across the region to deliver this new goal through all relevant strategies and plans. 5. Report to Full Council every six months with the actions the Council will take to address this emergency. 1 https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Climate-Local-Commitmen t-refresh-2018.pdf 2 https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement 3 https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments 4 https://www.campaigncc.org/councils_climate_emergency 5 https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/faqs/services/scope-3-indirect-carbon-emissions/

Our arguments against the proposed development are many and varied, and include, but are not limited to the following: - The designs are extremely poor, and do not comply on numerous counts, to GLC guidance (including no provision of lifts, no play areas, no significant outdoor space, a front door that is restricted and unsafe, insufficient waste storage). - Restriction of daylight (to the flats on the current top floor, to flats opposite on both sides, and to those on the ground floor due to the proposed new bike sheds). - The detrimental effect on the character of the area. Finn House was built in the 1930's, and is a classic example of the architecture of the time, having survived bombing during the 2nd world war. But additionally, to build a 5th floor would make it taller than even the newest developments opposite, and fail to take into account the precedent set by these major planning applications. - We were not consulted or informed about the planning proposals by the freeholder, until after they had already submitted the planning application. Even then, they made no effort to consult leaseholders direct - only tenants actually living in the building. - The disruption to tenants and leaseholders (some of whom have lived in Finn House since it was built in the 1930's) will be extreme, both during the construction and afterwards. More details of our objections have been raised in our individual online oppositions.

Whitechapel Bell Foundry is one of the most important and historically most socially and economically significant establishments of art and industry in Britain. Founded in the sixteenth century, it hosted the casting of Big Ben and of the Liberty Bell. The choice over its future is stark: it could now become a boutique hotel for wealthy businessmen, or else a living and working site where traditional artisan skills can be combined with the most modern technologies, a centre that would work in close collaboration with the local community. United Kingdom Historical Building Preservation Trust (a charity with a distinguished track record in heritage-led regeneration) in partnership with Factum Foundation (a global leader in the use of technology for preservation of heritage) have the resources to buy the Foundry buildings from the developer and re-open them as a working foundry, re-equipped with up-to-date machinery, for the production of bells and for art casting. For background go to http://spitalfieldslife.com/2019/02/03/a-bell-themed-boutique-hotel/ and https://ukhbpt.org/whitechapel/information

Sport brings many benefits to many people. Physical activity not only keeps participants fit but also increases confidence, reduces stress and improves wellbeing. The proposed cuts will directly put young people and communities.

Saxon Hill Acadamy is a special needs school in Lichfield for children up to the age of 19. It currently runs a Sleepover Club where students can stay overnight. At the moment this runs four nights a week during term time. This provision provides a place where the students can socialise together, something which is difficult outside this setting due to the complex needs of these young people. As well as the social side it also helps with independence away from the family. The staff help the students to reach their potential in a safe and happy environment. This a unique service not provided by many other places and is important to the pupils, families and staff of the school. I speak from experience having been a pupil at Saxon Hill Acadamy and attending sleepover club for many years. I believe it helped the move to residential college easier for me when I left at 19 and gave me the confidence to succeed in the future. I am currently working in theatres and I am the disability officer for a local political party. The County Council have just announced that they are cutting funding to the sleepover club which means places are being reduced from 44 to 33. This means 11 students will have their places taken away from them. This will happen from the 1st April 2019. Furthermore the contract is only being given for one year and will then be reviewed before next April. This means sleepover could be closed next year. This is an important facility that needs to be saved and have it’s funding restored.

It is very important that this step or similar is included in Section 444 of The Education Act to avoid what is currently taking place for some families. Of course parents who are not bothering to take their children to school for no good reason should be dealt with. However, when you have disabled children or in my case Autistic children the causation of lower attendance can be for very different reasons. For example, numerous legitimate hospital and clinic appointments can soon lead to lower attendance levels and children being flagged up for concerns. This is especially true during the statutory assessment process when there are lots of appointments with professionals and assessments undertaken. I have autistic children. Children with high levels of anxiety around social interactions with associated sensory processing dysregulation who need a higher level of support. Getting that support in place can be a protracted process where budgets available to support are already stretched. Sometimes support fails and needs updating or amending. Again unfortunately this tends not to happen quickly. In the interim, while children are waiting for help to be put in place it can lead to very real school based anxiety reflected very often in school refusal or lateness. This is a very different kettle of fish. I believe that there should be a separate process for these situations and that is a simple fix by way of an amendment or exclusion. Too often EWO action is used as the first response and this can really frighten parents who are already parenting under pressure. This response to difficulties doesn't help the child and it certainly doesn't solve the situation. I feel it is not what Section 444 was designed for. I live in Exeter, Devon. I am currently party to such a situation. I have an autistic child in the middle of a statutory assessment. I am nearly at week 20 of the process. Many needs have been identified including new diagnosis and the local authority in charge have confirmed that they will issue an EHCP in response to those needs. Those needs include Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Cerebral Palsy, Sensory Processing Dysregulation, Dysarthria. This is a child with many barriers to the mainstream school environment. In the interim whilst needs are identified, there is still no Education, Health, Care Plan (EHCP) in place and subsequently no extra funding available to deliver extra help in school. SEND Support has not been stepped up in response. SEND Support comes out of a budget which is not ring fenced and so many schools in the current climate simply do not have money available. Children have very often already broken down or are suffering by the time all of the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. My son is presently in limbo without the support that he needs being put in place. As a result, his anxiety has increased around going to school, in the absence of any consistent support to the recommendations around this, we have had to bring him into school slightly later to avoid the sensory overload (noise, visual stimulation) that the very busy mainstream morning school environment causes him. This has got much worse, the longer his now very much identified needs have gone unidentified and unmet. He will be 6 years old in the summer. The first response of the school and the local authority has not been to support us and work together to put support in place with the professionals around the child, but rather to fire out an EWO letter to us with no prior meeting to discuss or resolve. Fire this letter knowing full well that this child has special educational needs and that he is in the middle of this statutory process. We have done our level best as parents, contacting the team around the child as the difficulties began to present themselves and we have asked for their help. We wait hopefully for a response. Also sometimes attendance issues can be the first red flag for children who have special educational needs or disabilities. This should be factored in to my mind when the school or local authority are noticing attendance issues. Is this being caused by SEND? Section 22 and 23 of the Children and Families Act highlights statutory duty around these children. Section 22: The duty of Identifying children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and Section 23: The duty of health bodies to bring certain children to local authority's attention. SEND as a causation should surely be the FIRST possibility ruled out? Lots of parents to disabled children become so afraid with this gun being held to their heads that they deregister and home educate their children rather than face a legal battle. Section 444 shouldn't cause exclusion of disabled/SEND children from school, backing helpless parents into a corner? That cannot be allowed to be the knock on effect of this law! It needs to be amended or SEND children need to be excluded. EWO letters/action clearly are not a helpful response to unmet special educational needs for disabled children. For lots of parents this can cause more very real worry, distress and anxiety on top of what is already a difficult situation. Section 444 allows in extreme cases for action towards parents that falls under criminal law. This is not an appropriate road to travel in these circumstances. As a seasoned and experienced parent to SEND children, I can confirm that It's a common nationwide practice that I see occur more often than it should do. I don't believe that the intention of this law was that it be used in this way towards disabled/SEND children and their parents/carers and that there should be clear steps involved in the process to prevent this from happening or that disabled children should be exempt from Section 444 and different legislation be applied altogether.

College Farm in Finchley, North London is one of the very few genuine farms in the capital. It was established over 150 years ago by the Express Dairy and many of the original buildings still exist. Three are listed by Historic England as being buildings of great historical or artistic value and have official protection to prevent them from being changed or destroyed. Many adults in North London will have fond memories of visiting the farm as a child with their parents or school. In recent years the farm has not been open to the public, and a group of concerned residents from Finchley are worried that the farm might one day be sold and lost to the community forever. Listing the farm as an Asset of Community Value will give the community the chance to bid for the farm should it ever come on to the market. A decision will be made on March 7th so we need the help of as many people as we can find to convince the Council that this is a worthy campaign.

My son has just lost a school friend in a tragic road accident this week whilst he was cycling to school Tuesday morning. A car and Tyler collided and he sadly sustained fatal injuries, sadly a helmet was not worn. This MUST stop. On spot fines or confiscate cycles if a helmet is not wore by the cyclist. Helmets should be the norm, to make it less trendy for these teenagers to go without one. Everyone will be in the same boat so it becomes less of a stigma.