I can barely contain my frustration and sadness at our political leadership that in a democratic society can force unsafe working practices and unilateral pay cuts on a group of dedicated, committed and highly trained caring professionals.

In my experience, my partner of the age of 31 started to have irregular bowel movements and having pains in his legs. So my partner visited the GP numerous times, GP taking varies blood samples and nothing came from it.... so after a few more visits to the GP and A&E, my partner was finally admitted to hospital, after a few tests and scans, my partner was diagnosed with stage 4 Bowel cancer in Oct 2014. All the symptoms of Bowel cancer started a few months before diagnosis. After a few months after a procedure to remove the primary cancer, my partner started chemo to help reduce or stop the spread of the cancer. Unfortunately my partner passed away in June 2015. As the cancer was very aggressive after chemo have finished, the chemo was used to give my partner the best quality of life. And extend my partner life for 8/9 months. If the GP recognised the symptoms earlier, my partner would had a greater chance of survival. But our GP just ignored it.. I feel disappointed and shocked that his happened and I don't want to see this happening to another else. So we need to persuade the NHS to reduce the age of the free screening test to ANY age and for over 60's. Thank you for reading why this is important to me. Keendy Chan

KCC’s Proposed modifications to the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP) 2013-30. state that subject to certain conditions, planning permission will be granted for proposals associated with the exploration, appraisal and development of oil, gas and unconventional hydrocarbons. This blanket approach ignores the inherent risks of fracking which have been well documented around the world. The dangers are real and critical. Consultation on the subject has been buried in obscurely worded documents that will have successfully slipped below the radar of most of the residents of Kent. This is not an acceptable democratic approach. KCC must ensure they represent the views of the residents and land-owners of Kent before permitting any fracking activity to take place on Kentish soil.

Oliver Campbell was convicted because he suffered from a brain injury and is of low IQ and very suggestible. He 'confessed' to murder to the police in the absence of his solicitor. His co-defendant, Samuels, also convicted of murder, told the police that Oliver wasn't present at the crime and had nothing to do with it, but because he didn't give evidence at the trial, the jury was never aware of this. Since then Samuels has repeated that Oliver is innocent, but the CCRC refuses to use this evidence as grounds to refer the case for a second appeal. Oliver has now been released, but still seeks to have his murder conviction overturned. Back in 2002 A television investigation cast doubt on the murder conviction and produced a documentary as part of the series Rough Justice showing their findings......... (the following is an extract from an old article) Oliver Campbell has been in jail for 10 years of a life sentence for the murder of an East End off licence owner, Baldee Hoondle, during a robbery in July 1990. Although Campbell confessed to the crime under interrogation, his lack of legal representation at the time and the strategy employed by the police to gain a confession from a 20-year-old man of limited mental ability have already been said to cast doubt on the case against him. Campbell has since persistently protested his innocence. Next Sunday the BBC programme Rough Justice will present an analysis which challenges the prosecution's case. It contains a statement from an accomplice to the robbery which, if true, exonerates Campbell, and it claims to be able to name the person who fired the fatal shot. A crucial piece of evidence was a baseball cap dropped by the murderer as he ran from the off licence. During interrogation, the police told Campbell that his fingerprints were found at the scene and the hairs on the cap matched his. In fact, the forensic tests had not been completed. When they were, no fingerprints of Campbell were found and the hairs were not his. There is, allegedly, no forensic evidence linking him to the scene. Later, at an identity parade, neither of the two witnesses to the crime picked out Campbell as the man in the cap. The two robbers were said to be 5ft 10in or 5ft 11in; Campbell is 6ft 3in. Campbell is left-handed while the shot was fired most probably by a right-handed man. Campbell had lived in a number of foster homes and is claimed to be borderline mentally defective. An accomplice to the crime, Eric Samuels, who was sentenced to five years for robbery, said that Campbell was not the killer. But his evidence was never heard in court. Campbell may have contributed to the police case by admitting to knowledge of the crime which he had actually got from a BBC Crimewatch programme.

The extensive resources and experienced staff within Enfield Local Studies Centre and Archives are the heritage jewel in the crown for the Borough of Enfield. The Council is keen to use them to publicise themselves yet with no forethought of true costs plans to render these services virtually unusable. Other archives have tried digitalisation at great expense. This is discrimination against older people and others who do not have access to and cannot afford the internet. Ancestry.co.uk will not provide free access, apart from their free library edition when accessed in a library, certainly NOT at home which would have to be subscription based. This centre also obtains grants to interview local people about their pasts - specifically WW1 and WW2. These intergenerational projects involve the whole community and provides a historical resource for future generations. I have undertaken some of the interviewing so I have witnessed the value of information given and the pleasure local residents have experienced in telling their stories. Please also take part in the council consultation which closes on 18 October 2015. Forms available in local libraries or online at http://www.enfield.gov.uk/info/867/current_consultations/3896/enfield_local_studies_centre_and_museum

He is a man who thinks he is still relevant in society and attempts to tell others what to do when he pioneered the Iraq War and helped the 2008 Recession to occur.

Open spaces are the lungs of our wonderful borough and the proposed change of use of this Metropolitan Open Land sets a precedent that could gradually consume this protected land. •Potential trade-offs have been discussed with the private landowner to develop housing on the site •This land is protected as stipulated by the Lord Mayor in the London Plan 2015 who said that Metropolitan Open Land must be preserved unless very extreme circumstances exist. Once gone, such open space is lostforever. IMPLICATIONS FOR US ALL ARE: - Threat to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Ealing Cricket Club Conservation Area. The build would remove protected MOL and set a precedent for further unwelcome development. - A significant increase in traffic in our neighbourhood with the possibility of local gridlock. Many local residents recognise that something needs to be done to prevent inappropriate development of the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground and want restoration of the grounds for much needed fitness and leisure activities that is very much lacking in the Ealing North and Central community .

Oxfordshire County Council is proposing to shut down all 44 of the County’s Children’s Centres, and halve the current Early Years budget of £16m. Instead the council will replace them with just eight Children and Family Centres, which would only be accessible to the most vulnerable by referral. Our well used and much loved centres in communities across Oxfordshire currently provide a wide range of early intervention support including parenting courses, support for postnatal depression and mental health, young parent groups, breastfeeding support, mobile libraries, maths and English classes for adults, midwife support, baby groups, health visitor drop-in clinics, Freedom programmes for victims of domestic abuse and much more. If current proposals go ahead, most of this support would either disappear entirely or only be available to families who are already in difficulties. An end to universal provision of support for families of under-fives will only increase the stigma associated with seeking out help, and may put people off using these essential services at a time when they feel vulnerable and isolated. It is a false economy to close Children’s Centres. Universal access to the early intervention services they provide has numerous economic and other long-term benefits for the health and wellbeing of parents, children and the wider community. The cuts will result in a higher workload for other health professionals (health visitors, GPs), higher future costs and an increased risk of postnatal difficulties (breastfeeding difficulties, postnatal depression) with potentially serious and long-term consequences for parents and babies. We have started a community-led campaign asking the council to reconsider these plans urgently. The children’s centres are well regarded, well established and their staff are highly experienced professionals. Many families across Oxfordshire can and do readily access support at a time when they need it most. The testimonies of families who have used the centres make it clear how much of a lifeline they are. Together, we must protect them.

This event is one of the causes of the lack of regard for politics in general amongst the electorate as it is so clearly nothing more than a public schoolboys’ shouting match. Its purpose is supposed to be holding the government to account but it singularly fails to do this and nothing positive ever comes from it that could not be achieved through alternative means. All Labour MPs (except individual backbenchers with genuine constituency based questions) should refuse to attend this brouhaha - returning to the chamber for any item that involves a vote. This would be a powerful strategy to move towards the better/different/more grown-up politics that Jeremy Corbyn advocates.

It is essential that we get a proper definition of child poverty so that any government can make proper decisions about how the will address child poverty. The decision to exclude in-work households means that the review will remove those families whose parents are working on low incomes and struggling to pay their bill! This decision would mean a potentially huge chunk of potential vulnerable children will be excluded and probably not become entitled to any support that should be entitled to. The UK has a a lot of low income families. Is this the reason they are excluded? Support this campaign so that the commission can make a valued decision on how to properly address child poverty across the UK.

Amina is a Tunisian national who is 35 weeks pregnant. I cannot visit Tunisia for the birth of our first child because of the FCO's restriction following the attack there this summer. There is one more week before she cannot fly from Tunis to the UK. The Home Office Helpline said the "Surinder Singh route" was appropriate for us - this is where a UK National has transferred his life to another EU country and while there has created and strengthened family ties with a non-EU National. In these circumstances EU rules apply (as set by the Surinder Singh case and subsequent rulings). The non-EU spouse then has the right to enter the UK with their husband/wife, as is the case in any other EU Country. This case was refused because the Entry Clearance Officer thought that couples also had to live in the EU after their marriage. (We went to Hong Kong for 12 months post-doctoral research work in a University, then came back to the UK.) In fact subsequent clarifications from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that the family relationship must be created and strengthened within the EU - we were both resident in France at the time of our marriage. There is no requirement to live in the EU for any further period of time. This mistake in implementing the law can be overturned from within the Home Office. At the moment we are denied our right to a family life together and in particular will be apart for what should be the best day of our lives - when our child is born. Aside from personal issues, it is ridiculously difficult for a British national to bring their spouse to the UK. In our case, the overwhelming response of friends and family is "surely she can be with him as his wife".... The British public are unaware of the issues facing genuine legal immigrants and need to be told how the UK's isolated stance on Borders and Immigration is creating misery for individual families in so many ways. It must also be noted that two UK members of parliament have been in touch with the Home Office on our behalf due to the tight time-scale involved. Their best efforts to help us have been met with bureaucratic brick walls, un-informed ‘contact centres’ and a complete absence of communication links with anybody in a position to accelerate our urgent case. My attempts to contact UKV&I were similarly un-fruitful, although quite lucrative for the visa service who charged me in excess of £10 on a telephone call to simply tell me that Amina’s case had not yet been assessed. The UKV&I email enquiry service on the gov.uk website seemingly generates automatic responses based on key words in the original question asked by the user, with replies ranging from unhelpful to absurd. Two important and quite general questions are raised as a result of this experience; firstly, how can the UK government get away with not applying EU immigration law, requiring many cases that fall outside the letter of previous rulings to go through ECJ appeals? The UK is part of the EU and the laws of the wider union come before national law. The UK’s ‘pick and choose’ attitude towards EU policies is evident here, with the government being very keen to remain part of the economic treaties, whilst shirking its responsibilities on other matters, particularly immigration. The government’s refusal to participate in the proposed quota system to distribute migrants in the current crisis, as well as Theresa May’s recent announcement that the EU’s ‘Freedom of Movement’ policy is actually a truncated version of ‘Freedom of Movement to a job’ are other clear demonstrations of this irresponsible attitude. Secondly, how can the government justify branding people as ‘illegal immigrants’, when even those seeking to follow the law and obtain visas through proper channels are refused leave to enter the country? The current visa system is incomprehensible and completely un-yielding, refusing to adapt to an individual’s circumstances or provide information to those elected to represent the public: our MPs. The Home Office and those working in it are supposed to be providing a public service, and even acknowledge this through referring to users of the visa system as ‘customers’. Immigrants are already ineligible for state benefits, and must pay the Immigration Health Surcharge regardless of whether or not they use NHS services, so arguing that preventing, for example, spouses of British citizens from coming to the UK will reduce the burden on the state is untrue. Furthermore, the inflexible nature of immigration policy means that the UK is often losing qualified professionals to other countries, as is the case here. Both my wife and I are doctors of physics, and are being driven out of the UK despite our qualifications. We are not alone in this situation, the Surinder Singh route is not a 'loophole' that the government should seek to close - it is one of the last defences protecting EU law from the UK's cruel immigration rules.

The railway inn has been the heart and soul of the community for over 100 years. It provides a central point for the local people and beyond to gather in a safe social environment. it is an entertainment hub with weekly live music as well as a base for local sports teams and activities. It is also an accredited safe place for people with social needs.