In the runup to Christmas 2014 my local Tesco store - Ilkley, West Yorkshire - placed posters next to the checkouts listing the store's extended opening hours over Christmas. The posters also invited customers to take a photo of the poster if they wanted their own record of the opening hours. So I did. As Christmas passed I forgot about the photo and may even have deleted it. A week ago,almost 6 months later, I was suddenly surrounded by the Store Manager, Head of Security and 3 other senior managers, frogmarched into a private corridor and interrogated, military style, as to why I have been systematically been taking illicit photos of the store staff on numerous occasions during the past 6 months! I explained to the Store Manager that this was completely untrue and that I have never taken 'illicit photos' of the staff on numerous occasions, but simply a photo of a poster on 1 occasion as described above. He refused to believe me and has subsequently informed me that his staff regard me as a major threat to their health and safety, a potential security risk to the store and that, furthermore, I am now the subject of a police investigation into the incident. Further enquiries to Tesco Head Office have revealed that this is standard Tesco policy which will be applied to each and every Tesco store in the UK. Although the specific circumstances of this case may be seen as ridiculous and laughable, they mask a much more serious and sinister trend. I have been treated by this store as almost a potential terrorist for simply taking a photo within a Tesco store. There was no suggestion at the time that this photo would be published, distributed, downloaded onto the internet or posted in any way to a third party. It was taken for purely personal use and, incredibly, at Tesco's own invitation. There is nothing illegal, as far as I am aware, about my actions. Yet Tesco have responded by treating me as a potential serious criminal. What is deeply disturbing about this is that if you are a photography student, photographer, journalist, artist or simply a law abiding member of the public who wants to engage in the hobby of photography you will be treated almost like a terrorist presenting a major threat to public safety by this company. This case introduces a major challenge to civil liberties and human rights of every single member of the public in the UK who happens to have a camera (or camera phone) in their possession while on Tesco premises. This is why I think a campaign should be launched to pressure Tesco to change this draconian policy.

Due to the ever increasing fraud within FIFA and the inability of knowing who to trust, added to the hundreds of slave labourers who have already died building the Qatari Stadiums (current estimates are that 4000 will have perished by the time the competition starts), it would be morally wrong to send your national team to this competition which is already rocked by corruption, bribery and death. Let UEFA hold an alternative competition during the European summer instead and publicly denounce the QATAR bid which is under extreme scrutiny for further bribery and corruption behind its successful bid to host the World Cup

The mental health crisis in this country is dire. There is a shortage of beds, people waiting too long to be seen by a therapist. My local mind may have to close because of funding. I need people to help me fight for the services we so badly need please can people sign and share xx

Oakham Fire Station is 1 of 20 Fire Stations in Leicestershire Fire and Rescue (LFRS). The geographical area it protects is the second largest in LFRS. The area includes many risks such as part of the A1 motorway, HMP Stocken and a number of industrial units. The station attends a number of Road Traffic Collisions (RTC’s) on the many treacherous roads surrounding the area. Oakham Fire Station is the only Station in LFRS where calls to incidents have not declined over the last 5 years. Because of the risks in the area, Oakham Fire Station contains 3 Fire Service appliances. 1 of which is a fire engine that is available 24/7 and crewed by a minimum of 5 full time firefighters. The other 2 appliances are crewed by part-time retained firefighters who live and work in the Oakham area. The part-time retained firefighters at Oakham crew a second fire engine with a minimum of 4 firefighters. They also crew the Heavy Rescue Unit (HRU) appliance that attends specialist rescues such as RTC’s involving Heavy Goods Vehicles. LFRS have proposed to remove all of Oakham’s part-time retained firefighters and the fire engine they crew by April 2016. There has been no mention of what will happen to the HRU, but without the retained firefighters who crew the vehicle. It is unlikely to remain at Oakham Fire Station. Therefore, Oakham will be left with only 1 fire engine usually riding 5 firefighters, rather than 3 fire appliances with 11 firefighters it currently has ready to respond to any emergency incidents when they are needed. We believe these changes would increase the risk of death and injury to the members of the public in Oakham and Rutland. The estimated cost for LFRS to keep Oakham’s second fire engine and all the retained firefighters who crew it is £97,000 a year. RCC has kindly offered the Combined Fire Authority (CFA) £150,000 in order to maintain Oakham’s second fire engine and its retained firefighters for the next 2 years. On the 8th April 2015 the CFA decided that Oakham’s second fire engine and all its retained firefighters would be removed by April 2016. At the same time the CFA stated they would continue discussions with RCC regarding accepting the offer of £150,000 and using it instead to fund a Rapid Response Vehicle (RRV) which is to be placed somewhere in Rutland. We believe the RRV will provide a significantly reduced service to the people of Oakham and Rutland compared to that given by the second fire engine at Oakham. The RRV will be crewed by 2 or 3 firefighters rather than a fire engine which can be crewed by a maximum of 6 firefighters. The RRV will contain significantly less firefighting and rescue equipment compared to a fire engine. Furthermore the RRV may not even be placed in Oakham. To highlight the reduced service the RRV will provide; at present when a fire engine attends a house fire, the crew can only go inside that house if it has a minimum of 4 firefighters. This is to ensure all the safety critical roles and procedures are being met. Since the RRV will only be crewed by 2 or 3 firefighters, in the same situation the crew of the RRV would not be allowed to enter the house to rescue the people inside or extinguish the fire and would instead have to wait outside until further resources arrived. This is unacceptable and could lead to members of the public risking their own lives to try and save their family, friends and neighbours. Whilst the firefighters riding the RRV have to stand outside awaiting further resources. Therefore, it is crucial we oppose the £150,000 offered by RCC to be used for anything other than helping to maintain Oakham’s second fire engine and the retained firefighters who crew it.

This excellent and very busy general hospital covers the whole of south west Wales - with patients and visitors having to travel round trips of up to 100 + miles. The health board has absolutely no consideration for its disabled and elderly patients nor, indeed, for any of its patients and visitors.

Sugar is a zero nutrition addictive drug / poison which is easily consumed in large quantities by children, decreasing the overall well-being of society. Medical experts are fighting for there to be taxes on unhealthy foods and sugar will be one of the easiest to tackle, will generate funds which go directly to the NHS as well as long term decreasing treatment demand. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32882186

Only registered doctors can work in the UK and the GMC as a government monopoly charges a premium to be registered. Doctors have to pay many fees to allow them to work but the fee to be on the register now appears antiquated and unjust, especially when we have no way to question how much we are charged for the continued privilege to work and serve the public. As an additional point, would it be more sensible to have the GMC as a publicly funded body? Tax payer funding for tax payer protection.

By requiring 2/3rds majority assent it will ensure that significant changes to the governance of Britain are seen as clearly legitimate. This is especially important with major changes (such as the possible exit from the EU) as many of these changes will be either irreversible, or very difficult to change back. By requiring a 2/3rd majority on Bills before Parliament with a major constitutional affect it would also ensure that there is reasonable negotiation between parties and that such changes would reflect the interests of the public as a whole.

NYCC has already made subsidy cuts to bus services of a whopping £2 million in 2013/2014 - the highest in the UK - and now it wants to cut an extra £500,000 in 2016. Buses are a lifeline for so many, for both practical and social reasons. If a person cannot drive, or doesn't have access to transport, why should they be disadvantaged further? If somebody relies on the bus to get to work, why should they worry - again - that they may not be able to get there? You never know when you may need a bus so please don't take them for granted. They are a necessity and not a luxury. Here's my story: I've been using the 31x between Easingwold and Helmsley on an almost daily basis for several years to get to work. It's clean, reliable and a safe way to get to a lovely rural part of the world that is very popular with tourists. NYCC is thinking of cutting my two regular journeys to term-time only, with unacceptable cuts to the rest of the service which will effectively reduce it to three days a week and two journeys a day - one from and one to Helmsley - and nothing at all at the weekend. You can find full proposal information here: www.northyorks.gov.uk/bussubsidy DON'T LET NYCC CUT OR FRAGMENT ANY MORE SERVICES.

There are too many injuries and sometimes deaths on Hopkinstown Road. We need some traffic calming measures at least. It is irresponsible of any highways agency to ignore this serious problem. How many times do people have to suffer loss and injury before highways authorities take notice. How many times do we have to ask?

Because there is too much of this misreporting of people claiming state benefits and it needs to stop

To provide a positive national platform in addressing, establishing and supporting the rights of Disabled People and Caregivers.