When the Blue Badge Holder is admitted into hospital, his/her carers responsibilities are reduced, however, in order to visit, the disabled person in hospital, the carer must pay full parking charges, which can be £12 a day. The carer may only use the Blue Badge if the disabled person (Blue Badge Holder) is being dropped off or picked up. As Carers Allowance is only £61.35 a week, after some 5 days of visiting the carer is "out of pocket", whereas some hospital car parks are free for Blue Badge Holders.The financial burden, upon the carer, when the disabled person is discharged from hospital, can be quite harsh, especially if the carer has had to pay for parking.

Any cuts to this vital service would cause real hardship to the less able in many parts of Wiltshire

The forthcoming Leaders' Debate presents a vital opportunity for the voting public to hear how the different political parties would act in government over the next five years, if given the power to do so. Among the millions of children and young people who are affected by government policies every day, one group in particular rely more directly on government than any other – the 68,000 children in care*. For these children and young people, too-often invisible in political debates and without a vote of their own, the state has a special responsibility. Anyone seeking government office, not least hoping to be Prime Minister, takes on a ‘corporate’ responsibility for all children in care. We believe it is our duty as voters to hold our politicians to democratic account for their role as corporate parents to these children. If we don’t, who will? This General Election should be the first in which the nation publicly asks its politicians how they will live up to their responsibility to be good parents for our most vulnerable children. We call for the Leaders' Debate on 2nd April (and other leadership interviews) to include one simple question to all parties: ‘What will you do for children in care?’ *There are 68,000 children in care in England.

Every day, people are throwing away all kinds of plastic bags and packaging that cannot be recycled, creating mountains of waste. This ends up in landfill, is burnt in incinerators, releases dangerous toxins into the atmosphere, and escapes into our oceans. There are now 46,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre of the world's oceans, killing a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals each year. The planet is facing a crisis of pollution and finite resources. It is absurd to use non-recyclable materials in a time when many kinds of plastic can be recycled. When the well-being of the earth is in jeopardy, seemingly tiny actions amount to a phenomenal change when they are done at scale. What a difference it would make if all plastic packaging could be recycled. You the supermarkets should be leading the way and eliminating any packaging that is destined for landfill. In your role to bring good food to the nation you should ensure that all packaging can be recycled. The food on our table relies on a healthy environment, not one that is contaminated.

We hear about overspending NHS trusts but much of this arises from central government policy to reduce public expenditure without fully appreciating its implication. A recent 38 Degrees campaign refers to changes in medical advances which uses stem cell replacement to treat for bone cancer. Something not available 20 years ago. I recently lost two family members to bone cancer and was advised this was not available. Looking at the local trust it is because it is running short of funding! The public needs to agree what it requires, the NHS decide how much this will cost and the Secretary of Health and national government advise how much this will cost in taxation. The public then have the choice as to whether to accept the increase taxation or accept a lower level of NHS service. At present the public have no choice in the matter. Personally I prefer to have a NHS service I can rely upon rather than a service which is underfunded or a private sector which is constrained by profits and contracts. I hope you support this petition

David Coburn is a sitting MEP representing Scotland. He has brought shame to his country and his party. These racist comments are unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

Local community supporters are strongly united in confirming that this is the only local facility providing affordable equestrian services to the community at large, who otherwise would not be able to enjoy and participate in such activities. West London Stables has been in operation for almost 20 years and during this time has provided affordable and subsidised riding and equine therapy for residents of inner city London, including disadvantaged children, young carers, disabled children and adults, individuals undergoing rehabilitation for addiction and other people that would not normally be able to experience the pleasure of being around horses. Many of those riding at West London Stables can share heart-wrenching stories about how this facility has helped them in their everyday lives, some even say it has saved them – we now need to save West London Stables so that it can continue to support the community in its own unique way. West London Stables also greatly desires to revamp its current facilities to provide an even better service offering. To do so, it needs to raise funds and its hands are somewhat tied due to the lease extension only being granted until July this year. A 2,000 strong petition was launched last year in a bid to prevent closure sending a clear message to the Westway Trust leadership that there is both a requirement in the local community for equestrian services and that there is also support and desire for the current operator to continue to provide such services. The Trust have still not got the message, its time for them to pay attention and give the community what it wants and more importantly, what it needs.

The WRAG is a group of people with lived experience of mental health conditions. They have experience, past and present, of using mental health services, receiving benefits and working. This manifesto is supported by North East together (NEt), the North East regional network for people with lived experience of mental health conditions. Work capability assessments are part of a rigid system which relies on the assumption that just because a person can force themselves to carry out tasks, be around people and cope with unexpected events then it means they can and should do that in the workplace. It does not take into account the way that mental health is a fluid, uncertain concept and that a timeline of recovery cannot be predicted in the way that one recovers from a broken leg. We as human beings progress best when we feel able to go at our own pace and make choices about how we increase activity in a way that is meaningful to us. This is where work capability assessments get it wrong and are counter-productive. The tough regime and low benefits available on Job Seekers Allowance increase pressure on people with mental health conditions. JSA robs a person of their security as life becomes a constant battle to make appointments, attend meetings and apply for jobs in the fear that if they don't they will be sanctioned and their basic access to food and shelter will be compromised. This system creates a vicious cycle for us all; we feel disempowered, helpless and disrespected. It breeds anger, anxiety and meaninglessness. It disincentives progress and recovery. The DWP takes the view that the country needs to get back to work, and yet it has rolled out a vicious and unsupportive programme which delays people's recovery and made it harder for people to get back into the workplace. The DWP clearly has not responded to the evidence of increased mental health difficulties, reliance on food banks and suicide linked to the changes in the welfare system. They would probably claim that the system is working as unemployment has decreased, though how long can an employment boom based on zero hours contracts and self-employment last and it is at the expense of harming a huge number of people who are struggling with their health; who want to help themselves and yet are left feeling distressed and helpless in an unsupportive system that doesn't want to hear the shades of grey in "work capability". Our Manifesto What we, people with lived experience of mental health conditions, users of mental health services, carers, families and friends need: No More Work Capability Assessment • Create a fairer system: one that treats people with mental health and physical conditions equally. • Recognise that people cannot recover while living on or below the poverty line. • Stop sanctioning those affected by mental illness. Fund Services that Meet Our Need • Commission services that support wellbeing as well as respond at times of crisis. • Provide recovery focused services that provide continuity of care across all parts of our lives. • Encourage, stimulate and invest in services that are user led or co-produced. • Resource independent support for service users to be involved in the commissioning, design and improvement of the services they use. • Commit to parity of esteem between physical health and mental health care and make sure people with serious mental illnesses have the same life expectancy as those without. Support us in Meaningful Activity • Support us in activities that enable recovery. This could be via therapy, peer support volunteering, education or paid employment or something else. • Value our contributions to communities in the roles we choose. • Support to help us into employment should be available for as long as the individual needs it. Make Mental Health Everybody’s Business • Everybody has mental health. Promote wellbeing of mind and body. • Educate children about mental wellbeing in schools from starting school. • Promote programmes that encourage employers and employees to treat people with mental health conditions with more respect whether they are customers or members of staff. • Support people with lived experience to lead, deliver and be involved in these initiatives. • Make Workplaces More Mental Health Friendly by raising awareness of mental health conditions with managers and employees. Everyone has a place in society

We undesigned Angelus Sumesar-Rai, Prosper Rich, John Xuereb at 62 Bruce Rd E3 3HL and John Hayes at 34 Mount Terrace E1 2BB ask Tower Hamlets Mayor and cabinet members for TUSH Housing Co-operative house sharing to continue as we are family like community. As TUSH housing co-operative for 35 years with our own hands we have made empty derelict houses into our homes. 3 long-standing community members together with our pets are threatened with eviction by Tower-Hamlets council wanting to destroy our family like way of living. We who at present share 62 Bruce Rd E3 3HL are: 82 years old Trinidad Indian gentleman Mr Angelus Sumesar-Rai for 30 years a part of Bruce Rd co-operative family and one of the founding fathers and to this day performer at Notting Hill Carnival. Mr Sumesar-Rai shares house with 2 approaching 60 years of British citizens Mr Xuereb and Mr Rich. Together Mr Xuereb and Mr Rich spent 1000's of hours voluntary labour on co-op houses restoration, gardens cultivation, and as pets lovers fostering local wildlife. Mr John Xuereb as his parents is himself born and bred in East London, working class, driver, carpenter. Mr Prosper Rich home at 66 Bruce Rd had a fire 5 years ago. Tower Hamlets council delayed fire repairs for 4 years and kept the property empty for 5 years just to prevent Mr Rich and other residents to return to their home. We current TUSH housing co-op members request the Mayor and the cabinet of Tower Hamlets council that we are allowed to continue our family like communal living by staying where we are as TUSH housing co-operative. It makes sense for us to stay together without any cost to the council rather than to break our community down into separate flats with bathrooms, toilets and living rooms. We realise that 82 year old Mr Sumesar-Rai greatly values his independence and if he needs support he trusts us to help him as we know him for so long. Please agree for TUSH co-operative house sharing to continue as we are family like community. Signed: Angelus Sumesar-Rai, Prosper Rich, John Xuereb, John Hayes. 17-03-2015

Cancer patients in Staffordshire should know that the people caring for them are in the business of saving lives, not making money. There’s no justification for privatisation on this scale, ordinary people in Staffordshire haven’t been properly asked what they think, and if this deal goes through, we’ll be stuck with it for 10 years - and it could open the door for sweeping privatisation of our NHS across the country. As someone who lives in Staffordshire, I don’t want our healthcare in the hands of profit-hungry private companies. This contract is an untried, untested 10-year-long experiment and we can’t let this happen. If our CCGs don’t pull out of this deal, our money will be profiting shareholders rather than improving care. Let’s stop this in Staffordshire, and put the brakes on privatisation across the country.

The financial success of such an endeavour depends on delivering a quality design that can attract users and provide real, long-term benefits to the city. To eat away at the key features in order to preserve a budget is a false economy which will result in a cheap-looking, lacklustre development that will absolutely NOT befit a much-loved and historically significant structure, and would offer little to attract tenants or visitors. The proposals include a creative quarter for artists, and refreshment and leisure facilities for visitors, with the intention of generating income to support the continual preservation of the Grade I listed monument. This generated much local interest and debate between both supporters and detractors, and following public consultations, the Planning Committee approved the scheme. The features noted above were APPROVED, not only by the Council Planning Department and Conservation Officer, but also by English Heritage and the vast majority of Portsmouth residents who responded to the consultation. As a Grade I listed monument, Point Battery shares the same designated status as Porchester Castle, York Minster and the Palace of Westminster as a building of exceptional interest. It is therefore sensible to assume that Planning Permission granted on such a building would require an intense level of scrutiny to ensure that the submitted design is appropriate and sympathetic to the structure, and that only work essential to the realisation of the proposal is carried out. Deviating from the approved documents would be considered a breach of planning control under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171A, which can result in enforcement action being taken against the property owners. This is ESPECIALLY critical when those unauthorised changes are carried out on a nationally important historic structure such as Point Battery. As an example, the opening of the gun ports are clearly an integral part of the design, allowing essential light and warmth into the interior of the spaces and providing a more authentic historic appearance from the outside. Failure to implement this and other design elements would be hugely detrimental to the overall scheme, and could very possibly harm its economic prospects in the future. This would be an insult, not only to the many people who supported this project and the aims expressed through its design, but also to the objectors, who may now be faced with the failed development they always feared. Both these groups are taxpayers who put their faith in the democratic principles that underpin the planning process. Enforcement action would be an appropriate measure when dealing with breaches of planning control concerning a Grade I listed monument, as expressed in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework: "Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control." If the Council wish to "maintain public confidence in the planning system", then we suggest they implement the scheme they agreed to in the first place, the approved documents can be found here: http://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MTA36TMO5G000 Portsmouth City Council: please don't let this unique opportunity end up a victim of penny-pinching bureaucracy.

We have a charity that helps vulnerable people in the day throughout the week. This project is self-funded, and since it started 3 years ago one of the heartbreaking facts we have encountered is that vulnerable people are lost every year from the cold and heat. They die from extremes in weather while sleeping outside, often alone, with nowhere to go. When housing is available, many can't cope with the day to day management of a home, and they barely survive - often failing self care . Young and Old need somewhere to be. The most important reason for this petition is to help people live. The things that defeats the vulnerable the most - which is to them like a living death - is loneliness: having no where to rest to feel safe and cared for. This leads to greater mental distress and physical deterioration. Charities pick up the slack were they can were the vulnerable of our town are concerned, but this is not enough. We who have signed this petition call for the town to have a permanent night shelter that is both a secure and safe resource for all in our community.