He is a popular television personality, and what the BBC don't realise is that they have dismissed what was a popular and regular television figure, and many viewers will miss this. The BBC once got rid of Moira Stuart, until they realized their mistake, and now she's back BBC Radio Two's Chris Evan's Breakfast Show.

This is NOT the right site or company to be operating a 24hr incineration operation. The proposal will see a 12m flue protrude from the valley bottom with an incinerator to burn waste that cannot be reclaimed. With steep sided valleys and frequent temperature inversions, fumes, smoke and particles will NOT disperse from the valley. 24 hour operations will cause noise disturbances for residents. As those living nearby know the noise travels much further due to the topography and acoustics of the alley and will be amplified during the night when there is no other ambient noise. Even run effectively this site would present potential health and quality of life issues for local residents. However, CVSH have a track record of failing to meet conditions associated with their original planning application and are subject to frequent complaints of noise, odour and environmental damage that could be avoiding with better management. The lack of pro-active environmental impact reduction and tendency to act only under duress when complaints reach critical mass do not bode well for their effective management of a waste incinerator! Please SIGN NOW to challenge their planning application and keep the Ryburn clean and free from environmental damage.

Because for many staff working in Universities their pay is squeezed while others are paid extortionately. Wage rises have not kept up with inflation, staff face job insecurity and regradings, and privatised services often pay only the legal minimum wage for working at the same site. Meanwhile private remuneration committees set the highest wages without criteria or accountability, at up to 25x the pay of staff at the same institution and pay rises of up to 40% per year. It's just not fair! This campaign is led by UNISON.

The restriction on GP referrals was introduced in July 2015. We had heard nothing of this and it appears it was sneaked in under the carpet. The excuse given is an overuse of hospital services in particular outpatient appointments. Does anyone go to an outpatient appointment unless required?. If a GP has decided that your ailment requires further investigation or treatment that should be the case. This cap on appointments could undermines the GPs professional status. The decision to refer a patient for treatment should not be based on purely financial reasons. The Referral Management System (RMS) is a scheme with a committee that take the decision on whether a patient will be referred for further treatment or tests. (what does that committee cost?) My husband is waiting for a decision from the RMS committee. His GP is in support but states that it is outside of her control. In the meantime he has to wait. Will it be yes or no. Please sign the petition to try to stop this cut, Many thanks We had a result this morning (1st December) a referral letter arrived. It shows that a little bit of pressure goes a long way.

We put forward something this town has needed since 2003, a minor injuries unit for children alongside an extension to the wonderful Brookdale dementia services, already next to that site. Let’s give something back to the community that is more important to our hearts than more shops. Margaret Brown and I (Cath Regan) are the co-chairs of CARES (Coalition Against Removal of kids Emergency & other Services), the team who fought tirelessly years ago for the return of our A & E and maternity services for our children. It is about time the powers that be FINALLY did something right and good for our children and elderly. We don’t want more shops or houses; there are plenty of both lying empty in Southport, just somewhere closer than Ormskirk and Liverpool to take our sick children to. Junior doctors are currently striking and A & E units are pushed to their limits. A minor injuries unit would give us the immediate peace of mind for our children, without 4 hour waiting times at an already full A & E. It is also a ‘perfect’ location between Formby and Southport with room for parking. Let’s finally return something that should never have been taken away thirteen years ago. I ask all parents, grandparents and families to support this and make it happen.

Depriving the local community of an amazing centre piece to the park and is disrespectful as its a memorial to the man who donated the land in the first place to the town so we could have a park . We want our kids to see it in its working glory like we did years ago.. History..... Dane Park was previously farmland and a great local resident, John Woodward, purchased it at an auction in 1895. Mr Woodward presented the land to the inhabitants of Margate to form the park, together with additional land for forming and widening the surrounding roads and six acres of building land on the south west side of the park, with the proceeds derived from the sale to be devoted towards the expenses of the park. Dane Park was opened by the Lord Mayor of London on June 1, 1898. Dane Park had a substantial lake, rustic bridges, swans and peacocks, refreshment rooms and a bandstand. The fountain was erected by the corporation of Margate as a memorial to the late John Woodward, who was a native of Margate and a great generous man! . The lake has been filled in and the Fountain shut down and lost to the town . Shame this memorial to an enormous gesture to the town has been turned into a flower pot !! . So disrespectful to a great man...

This is important because it will help save the environment.

Traffic turning onto V1 at school-run times is heavy and dangerous with cars travelling at 60mph. This is only set to get worse as Tattenhoe Park is developed. Share your views on our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/tattenhoecommunitynews/?ref=hl Fill in the survey on what restrictions we should fight for https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/6ZHRRZH

The proposals were developed in consultation with the local community, prioritising feedback from rough sleepers at the group's weekly Love Kitchen. Love Activists hope to gather 1250 signatures to force the council to debate the proposals at a full council meeting. Reasoning/Rationale: 1. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that when local authorities make vulnerability assessments, a 'homeless person' should be compared with an 'ordinary person who is at risk of becoming homeless'. There is no doubt that any homeless person is 'significantly more vulnerable' than an ordinary person, therefore everybody living on the street should be assessed as being in priority need. The judgement also made it clear that while councils are often under huge financial strain, this must not be used as an excuse for avoiding their legal duties. To guarantee duty of care and legal obligations are met, all local authorities must provide permanent housing for anybody living on the streets. 2. Housing first pilot project had a 70% success rate in Brighton & Hove - helping 7 out of 10 people with high support needs into accommodation. 3. Extended winter provision: additional services provided over a period of time e.g. every night from November to March. If the material resources exist to provide shelter from a severe weather emergency, economic arguments against keeping the shelters open are not as powerful as the humanitarian ones for opening them. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') Humanitarian Response: SWEP should be applied responsibly to prevent death at all times; 3 consecutive nights at zero or below is the minimum requirement. Local authorities should consider factors such as wet weather and wind chill, snow coverage and duration of extreme weather when looking at provision. Preventing deaths on the streets is the aim of the protocol, so if this demands more beds and a longer response the local authority should do everything it can to prevent harm to individuals. Economics cannot change the weather any more than economics can determine people's relative vulnerability to each other. 4. It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. Severely windy, wet weather is an emergency, as is extremely hot, dry weather. Homeless Link offers advice and guidance to BHT, St Mungo's and Brighton & Hove City Council. Currently their minimum definition of severe weather is when the temperature drops below zero for three consecutive nights. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') There is no strict definition of what counts as ‘severe weather’. Local authorities should proactively identify any weather that could increase the risk of serious harm to people sleeping rough and put measures in place to minimise this. This includes extreme cold, wind and rain. It is important not to presume when, or in what form, severe weather will occur. Sleeping rough is never comfortable, but the suffering is exacerbated by all elements It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. ('Homeless Link') http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Winter%20provision%20guidance%202015-16.pdf 5. If this doesn't happen there will be no truly affordable places to live and more people will inevitably become homeless. 6. This would make use of empty properties, keep people safe and avoid waste of tax payers money, private money and time spent on security, policing and court costs. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') In addition to the direct risk associated with severe weather, local authorities should work alongside other local statutory and voluntary services to identify and mitigate actions taken during severe weather that can increase risk for those sleeping rough. For example, people may choose to sleep in riskier places, such as in bins, where they can find cover. They may also enter buildings or property illegally, or increase their substance use as a coping mechanism. 7. No single authority can successfully move to implement all of these measures, because if they 'move first', their service capacity would risk being overwhelmed by people migrating to that local authority. Therefore, we must work towards implementing these measures nationally. [email protected] twitter.com/loveactivists_ facebook.com/loveactivistsbrighton

There have been almost 30,000 bombs dropped there already by 15 other countries, what makes British bombs any more effective?????

The con-trick has been engineered by Recruitment Agencies, whereby the pay-rate they initially promised to their temp/contract worker is greatly reduced due to them using "Umbrella Pay Schemes" who are the middlemen, to pay their employees. Unfair pay Payslips are often confusing and the cost of employer's national insurance and processing of pay is then passed onto the temp/contractor by the "Umbrella Payment Scheme;" all because the Recruitment Agencies don't want to shoulder the burden of being the actual *'employer.' Many contractors/Temps are also being forced into becoming an unlimited company - this action isn't always practical for the temporary worker as many jobs may only be for few days. *THIS NEEDS TO STOP AS IT AFFECTS, NURSES, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, TEMP OFFICE EMPLOYEES, THE LOW PAID and ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE JUST SURVIVING due to not enough permanent employment or the need to have flexible working hours Thank you kindly I hope to help not just myself, but others in a similar situation. I am employed by a Recruitment Agency and have been contracting via agencies for sometime; each week I am paid by an "Umbrella Pay Scheme" (Recruitment Agencies middleman). This scheme deducts their "margin" of £30.00 weekly from my pay along with *other deductions. Citation: - Under the umbrella company arrangement the burden of paying both workers’ and employers’ National Insurance contributions (NIC) reportedly fell on the workers, leaving some of them worse off by as much as £100 a week. - See more at: http://www.staffingindustry.com/eng/Research-Publications/Daily-News/Wales-Government-to-stop-use-of-umbrella-payroll-companies-on-all-future-construction-projects-32788#sthash.F7AMjyQs.dpuf

We feel that Donald Trump's unrepentant, persistent verbal attacks on various groups of people based on nationality, religion, race and physical abilities are a huge detriment to RGU. Hate speech must not have a place in academia, in politics or on the world stage. We are confident RGU will agree with the petitioners, and act swiftly. We would also note the brave opposition of Dr David Kennedy to this degree at the time it was bestowed.