To help the civilians caught up in this horror with the addition of famine and disease . This is utterly shameful to leave other human beings to suffer so much.

We need daily medication to keep well and when you are cash strapped cut corners by reducing it. I came unstuck and needed an ambulance three times and had an overnight hospital stay because of this. It cost the nhs well over £1000 for this. My prescription came to £16 and if I'd had my meds would have saved the government money. It's a no brainer

On the 6th April 2017 a petition with over 5000 signatures was presented to Brighton and Hove Council. Over 3000 signatures were signed on the streets of Brighton and 2200 online. The petition was against the implementation of PSPO’s. PSPO’s give Council workers and the Police the power to give Homeless people and Travellers an on the spot £100 fine for occupying a tent, vehicle or caravan in 12 locations across the city. Failure to pay the fine can lead to prosecution and a further £1000 fine. People breaching the order must provide a name address and date of birth. Failure to positively identify someone can lead to arrest. So effectively you can be fined, arrested and prosecuted for being homeless and having no money to pay for the ‘crime’ of being homeless. Brighton and Hove council voted for the petition to be noted but not to be forwarded to the Policy and Resources committee for further debate. Usually any petition with over 1250 signatures is debated at committee. Despite opposition to this legislation from Liberty, Equality and Human Rights Commission, local charities, specialist lawyers and the local community, Councillors blocked due democratic process by voting against the legislation being debated by the Committee that decided to implement it. It appears that Brighton and Hove Council want to sweep away homeless people and Travellers from our city through criminalisation and attempting to block any debate or opposition to the legislation. This will not work, it cannot work and we are standing against it. PSPO’s should only be used to target specific behaviours and not specific groups. This statement has been echoed by Sussex Police as well as human rights lawyers. This legislation is a direct assault on the homeless community and Gypsies and Travellers. PSPO’s have been misused in this context as living in a tent, caravan or vehicle are not anti-social activities in themselves. Article 8, of the Human rights act the right to a private and family life, is being infringed by this use of PSPO’s. Under the European convention on Human Rights, all public bodies owe a duty to facilitate the Gypsy way of life. This legislation is an attack on the Gypsy way of life and therefore in breach of Equality Duty and The European Framework Convention for the protection of Minorities. This policy is unlawful and need to be brought back to committee to be looked at again as it stands Brighton and Hove Council have blocked any further debate.

North Devon Hospital is vital, the time it would take to get to Exeter by car or Ambulance would be over an hour, Exeter Hospital already overloaded. Sign and share petition, write to MPs, write to newspapers, said save our Hospital point out how far Exeter is from Barnstaple, lack of public transport from surrounding villages to Barnstaple. Lives that could be saved lost.

We call upon the transport secretary to: 1) Pledge his immediate backing for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme including a new state-of-the-art 30-minute rail link between Manchester and Leeds – a ‘Crossrail North’; 2) Make an immediate commitment to at least £59 billion ‘catch-up cash’ over the coming decade to support the transport priorities being developed by Transport for the North; 3) Give Transport for the North the same powers as those enjoyed by Transport for London so that it can also raise private finance towards its own transport priorities. The government has announced its backing for the £31bn Crossrail 2 rail scheme in London just days after it has cancelled plans to electrify key rail routes, and rowed back on its long-standing commitment to electrify the trans-pennine link between Manchester and Leeds. Crossrail 2 was NOT in the Conservative Party Manifesto - whereas Northern Powerhouse Rail was! New analysis by IPPR North shows that over the past decade public spending on transport in London has been more than double that in the North – the North would have received £59bn more in investment over the last decade if it had received the same per person for transport as London. This is set to get worse, with planned public and public/private expenditure set at nearly £2000 per head, compared with £400 per head in the North BEFORE Crossrail 2 is taken into account. This is not just a matter of fairness. This is not special pleading. Transport investment needn’t be either/or. But lack of government spending on Northern transport is holding the whole economy back. Northern prosperity is national prosperity.

We have our own Poultry industry here in the UK, Money would be better spent training people to adhere to our own health and hygiene practices. We cannot have Carcinogens in our Food. Chlorine and Peracetic acid are used at a processing plant where a federal poultry inspector DIED after coughing up blood and his lungs and kidneys failed. Both are toxic chemicals known to cause lung damage among other health hazards.

GSK have recently announced that they are closing their factory in Slough: http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/15421539.Up_to_320_jobs_to_go_as_GSK_shuts_Slough_Horlicks_factory/ This building is well known locally as the Horlicks Building and can be seen by anyone in a train passing along the Great Western Mainline from the west of England into Paddington. Built in 1908, architecturally its most notable features are the large HORLICKS signage that sits above the roof, the castle like tower with it's art-deco clock and particularly from a distance the large circular chimney. There are concerns by many local residents that the site will be bought up by developers and demolished to be replaced by offices or apartments, rather than retained in its current form. As a remnant of Slough's early industrial history, it tells an important part of the town's history and is known as a local landmark to everyone living in the town. To lose it would be a great loss to the town. Read more about the building on this local blog here: https://friendly-bombs.tumblr.com/tagged/Horlicks

I really think that this is important because many people today do not live in traditional nuclear families; and many children form a stronger bond with a step-parent or relationship with someone of a similar nature as opposed to a biological parent. It seems, for many reasons, children and their potential adopters don't get the opportunity to discuss and/or execute adoption until the child has reached legal adulthood; and by this point the UK government no longer views the said child as eligible for adoption. The implications of this are social and legal issues that arise later in life surrounding the relationship between child and, for example, step-parent. I believe the 2002 UK Adoption and Children Act is outdated for modern day Britain.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

The Department for Work and Pensions has brought forward the proposed closure of Farnworth Jobcentre without any meaningful consultation with the local community. The Government claims that it is closing this Jobcentre as part of its "continued drive to deliver public services in more innovative and cost effective ways” without seeming to consider the impact on the local community. Farnworth is a deprived area, and residents rely on the support provided by their local Jobcentre, not only for help in finding employment, but also for benefit advice, access to computers and telephones. Farnworth Jobcentre is extremely busy and is valued by local residents, and to remove yet another service from Farnworth town centre means that unemployed and disabled residents will be further disadvantaged and could be pushed even further into poverty. Farnworth Councillors and I have been contacted by numerous constituents who are very concerned at the impact that this will have on them: Many unemployed or disabled residents of Farnworth, Kearsley and Little Lever simply cannot afford to travel into Bolton town centre. Even if some residents can afford the up-front cost of travel, the cost of reimbursement would be prohibitive as there is a high number of people who sign weekly, and some who sign daily. The closure of Farnworth Jobcentre would not result in savings to the public purse. In addition to the travel cost, it will also take residents considerably longer to travel into Bolton, increasing the likelihood of late attendance or missed appointments, which could lead to benefit sanctions. It would also cause greater inconvenience, including less time to spend searching for employment. People who have caring responsibilities are concerned that they will not be able to get to work on time, because of the extra travel time to get to Bolton Jobcentre. Residents with mobility problems will find it more difficult to attend Bolton Jobcentre, particularly those who are not able to use public transport and do not have access to private transport. The Government is currently consulting on health and disability issues, yet is at the same time making access to services more difficult. Bolton has two Jobcentres only a few hundred yards apart, yet Farnworth will be left with none. This simply makes no sense. Surely it would be better to close one of the Bolton Jobcentres and keep the one in Farnworth open? The Government requires claimants to attend more frequent face-to-face interviews than ever before, so it is vital that this service is retained in Farnworth We call upon the Department for Work and Pensions not to close Farnworth Jobcentre and ensure that its services are retained in Farnworth town centre.

Because the children will be punished for not wearing them and I don't think that's fair. it should have been bought to are attention and asked for a point of view before putting this in place

Bath and Bristol attract visitors from a wide catchment area for cultural events and for pubs and restaurants. Bristol has plans to develop a concert venue next door to the railway station. Thousands of car journeys would be saved by a later train. Thousands of car journeys to existing venues in Bristol and Bath would be saved. I am disabled. I have to rely on others driving to take me to Bath and Bristol for the theatre and concerts. A later train would give me and many like me independence.