According to Public Health England, the percentage of premature deaths attributable to minute particles known as PM2.5s rose to 5.3% in 2013 in England from 5.1% in 2012. The death rate in London rose to 6.7% from 6.6%. The figures follow significant improvements in air quality across England in 2010 and 2011. The figures were announced as scientists at King’s college London warned of “high” or “very high” particulate pollution across much of London and south-east England for a second day. Seems that this information is only available if you're in the know. Official government figures suggest 29,000 people die prematurely from air pollution a year across the UK from particle pollution emitted by vehicles, central heating systems and dust. Friends of the Earth said: “There must be proper public warnings when there are bad air pollution episodes like today’s - but rather than people having to restrict their activities it must be vehicles which are restricted so that people’s health is protected.” People with heart conditions or breathing problems were advised to reduce exercise and to stay at home. last 2 days

Councils across Scotland can not manage to keep services going without this tax being increased. All our services schools,hospitals,housing, and even refuse collection are suffering. Jobs are being lost,the country is imploding in on itself without money to work with.

Death is the one definite thing we are all guaranteed, and as time passes we forget this, dismissing it, as it becomes a far less common conversational topic. Bring this back into society to ease the blows of the inevitable and understand the painful truth.

It is established legal precedent that guilt has to be proved in a court of law, until that time innocence is assumed. Lord Bramall has suffered excessively purely as a result of the Metropolitan Police incompetence.

Over 1,550 jobs at Kingswood will be lost if Legal & General goes ahead with plans to close the flagship site in Kingswood, Surrey. Closure will have a devastating impact on the local community, costing millions. Many Legal & General workers in Kingswood are members of the trade union Unite, which has supported their campaign to defend jobs since the company first announced their intentions in 2015. The firm plan to close the site by the middle of 2018, citing cost cutting measures. This is despite L&G increasing operating profits in 2015 by 18% to £750 million. Shockingly Legal & General have neglected to carry out any research into the impact of closing Kingswood on the local community. An independent assessment commissioned by Unite has revealed that the closure will rip a devastating £21 million black hole in the local economy. This will be devastating for the local economy, threatening jobs in businesses and services in Kingswood and across the county. This flies in the face of Legal & General’s stated commitment to the long-term wellbeing of local communities. (Source: CLES Consulting, Centre for Local Economic Strategies, 2016)

Our environment is important to us and it's about time we started to realise this. We need to focus on renewable energy. I believe a stronger stance against fracking would also gain the SNP more support.

Increasing numbers of homeless people are being arrested for begging around the country. In 2013-14, 2771 cases were brought before the courts, a 70% increase on the previous year. Police use an archaic law which deems those found begging to be 'idle and disorderly'. Begging was made a recordable offence in 2003 against the strong criticisms of civil rights groups and homelessness organisations. Those prosecuted can be fined up to £1000 excluding court charges when found with just a few pennies. Those who have 'gathered alms' (that is, accepted money, food or other material goods offered to them) can be prosecuted under this same law with the same consequences. Some people are kept in cells for several nights. Although begging in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence, if the person is already on bail for another case a simple arrest for begging can lead to imprisonment. Those who are fined will inevitably have to beg more to pay off these fines, risking further arrests and fines, a punishment which stands out in its absurdity. Punishing the destitute for trying to survive is both costly and morally abhorrent. It is a waste of tax payers' money which is spent paying police who 'catch people out' in organised undercover operations, as well as on court cases to prosecute them. The minimum cost of bringing one case to the Magistrates' Court is £1000, meaning that in the year 2013-14, bringing begging cases before the courts cost the taxpayer at least £2.777 million. This is money that could be spent helping people rather than punishing them. Police also routinely move homeless people on under part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) which gives police the power to confiscate property and exclude individuals from a particular area for up to 48 hours, with the officer also able to impose by what manner and route the person must leave. Failure to comply is a criminal offence which can result in a £2500 fine or 3 months in prison. Refusing to surrender your property is punishable by a fine of up to £500. The two conditions needed by officers to issue a dispersal order are firstly, that the constable has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder, and secondly, that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of (a) or (b)'. Given that begging is a crime considered 'idle and disorderly', the two laws in tandem essentially give police de facto power to exclude any homeless person from any area simply because they think it is likely that the person, being homeless, might beg there. The highly subjective definition of 'anti-social behaviour' as that which contributes or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed reinforces this and even with the decriminalisation of begging, would still give police the power to move on any homeless person from any area simply because they believe doing so is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of members of the public being distressed by seeing them. Seeing people forced to live on the streets is distressing to much of the public for good reason, but this compassionate distress means that under this definition a homeless person is considered to be exhibiting anti-social behaviour simply by existing visibly. The anti-social behaviour that causes the public distress is not caused by the homeless person however, but by the authorities' failure to provide people with shelter in a country that has 600,000 empty homes. As described by someone living on the street, being asked to move on when you have nowhere to go is like being asked to walk into a brick wall. These laws and their enforcement victimize vulnerable people who are already suffering the daily struggle of life on the streets or in insecure and unstable temporary accommodation. We believe that kicking someone for limping when it is you who cut off their leg is shameless and cruel. We believe that the government should be providing homes for the homeless, not handcuffs. We therefore call on parliament to repeal without replacement section 3 of the Vagrancy Act (1824), to amend part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to safeguard homeless people from its discriminatory use, and for an ultimate end to the criminalisation of homelessness by any and all other laws that may be newly concocted or dug up for this purpose. If you have an MP who may be sympathetic, get in touch with them to push this issue to parliament. We launched this petition at our demo at Brighton Magistrate's court on the 20th January.

This family center brings together all different parents from many walks of life and helps support them through the good and the bad times. Provides a warm and friendly environment for parents and preschool children to attend 4 days a week. Without it, many parents would feel isolated.

Why in 2016 when the government are looking to make cuts, should they be immune to the same austerity they force so many others to live with? Last year a reported 1.1 million people were forced into using food banks, this year they are trying to force our NHS to do more, with less. They have already attacked the disabled, and raised tuition fees for those looking to further their education while at the same time taking a pay rise. Why should they get to claim personal expenses? Especially when the average MP salary is £67,060. The UK average salary is reported to be £26,500, and yet you and I have to pay for our own food, our own travel expenses, as well as our own day to day living expenses. Whilst I understand that staffing costs make up nearly three quarters of the total MP expenses budget, staffing and office costs as well as reasonable long distance travel costs should be managed by the IPSA. Any other personal claims simply shouldn't be allowed. Let's stand together and remind the Government they stand in office to serve the greater goods best interest and not their own.

The Housing Bill will take away public funding from affordable homes for rent, instead funnelling money into ‘Starter Homes’ that only the rich can afford. It will make it easier for private landlords to evict renters, and do nothing to control private rents. The bill will also force cash-strapped councils to hand over millions of pounds to housing associations to allow them to sell their properties cheaply, and replace secure tenancies with ones as short as 2 years Social housing has been the bedrock of many communities for the past 70 years. It pays for itself and 30 years ago provided homes to one in three British people, allowing people and communities to thrive. We are not against people buying a home, but this must not be at the expense of social housing for those who can’t afford to buy.

Oasis and Befriending are essential to the wellbeing of our autistic children and are a lifeline for them and their families. They help them to learn how to socialise, make friends and to try activities like shopping, bowling or swimming – things that other kids often take for granted. Autistic children are not able to take part in these normal, everyday activities without support and understanding from people trained in autism. Young people with autism are very socially isolated and need expert help to learn social skills and to be around other people. The Oasis Club and Befriending staff have specialist training and experience in autism which is essential in order to communicate with and support children with autism. Without these schemes, autistic children in West Berkshire will have nowhere to go. They will be denied what every child should have - a life with friends where they get to go out and do things in a safe environment with people who understand them and their differences. “Our son had to be home educated for a number of years when depression and anxiety threatened to overwhelm him and the Oasis Club was particularly crucial in those years as his only opportunity to mix with other kids, and our only chance in the week to re-charge our flagging batteries. Oasis has been the single biggest factor in his development from isolated, lonely and unhappy boy to the confident, sociable and happy young man he is today.” We need your support to reverse this decision and ensure children with autism continue to have access to essential services. Please sign this petition to tell West Berkshire Council: • Not to shut down the Oasis Club • Not to shut down the Befriending scheme And to • Keep funding short breaks services for children with autism Please help us to stop West Berkshire Council from closing down these vital services for autistic children. The more people who sign the petition, the louder our voice. With thanks, Kate Lo, West Berkshire Branch of the National Autistic Society

When claiming Tax Credits, the only options you have available to you are that of phone calls, and letters. I have recently been in touch with Tax Credits, and found to my great frustration that the only way the staff will communicate with you is via phone, or writing. This would be okay if the phones were answered in a timely manner, or that the post was direct to the department that it is intended to go to. I have had my post lost, I have had my calls unanswered, and have been cut off. And have now missed an important deadline. If there was a dedicated email address for the departments listed above, I would have had a paper trail, and not missed the deadline. I am not asking for personal emails to be known, just one where claimants can send relevant information through.