In your own words, this £2,000 payment was to "suitably reward our staff for the transitions they have and continue to make". May we respectively remind you that we are also your staff and we equally contribute and adapt to change. Such a contemptuous approach only serves to undermine our contribution. This would be difficult to accept at any time but on the back of year on year pay cuts, additional unnecessary pension contributions and in the middle of our campaign for fair pay makes it even more disdainful. Non-Operational staff have equally shown continued commitment, flexibility, adaptability and drive over many many years but regardless will not receive this payment. Surely this cannot be right. The importance and value we place on teamwork within the Scottish Prison Service is steeped in history yet it would appear you are now prepared to cast this aside in favour of a divisive, fragmented and financially motivated approach. Inevitably this cannot be good for the long term future of the SPS. We cannot underestimate our strength of feeling and injustice. What we are asking for is simply Fair Pay for All;- Mr Mathieson, it is in your gift to make this happen, your recent actions have clearly shown that you are not constrained by Westminster. Mr McConnel, your early messages showed an acknowledgement of unity, togetherness, shared values and goals. Please don't lose sight of this now.

We need to prevent the decision-making about the underground disposal of nuclear waste from passing to the Secretary of State and being taken away from the local government, with input from the general public.

To allow Jack’s Green development to go ahead would be illogical and wrong: Jack’s Green is a wilder version of Fine Shade with the wildlife and nature still undisturbed. The traffic congestion will be bigger (smaller roads), it is a new development as opposed to enlargement of an existing one. In addition to dormice (protected species on both sites) there are two extremely rare butterflies at Jack’s Green (purple emperor and black hairstreak) and the protected violet click beetle (only 1 of 3 sites in the whole of the UK). Also, Jack’s Green is close to the area of outstanding natural beauty (SSSI Belford Purlieus Ancient Woodlands). Any decision to approve Jack’s Green development would be made against public opinion. Please turn down this application on the same grounds you turned down Fine Shade Development. Keep Fine Shade fine and keep Jack’s Green green.

One of Britain’s oldest surviving prisoners of war faces being forced into a care home against his will after Brent council refused to pay for his home help. Robbie Clark, a 96 year old War Hero and ex POW, has spent almost all of his life savings to pay for 24-hour care at his home in Burnt Oak, North London. Now the veteran, who was one of the British soldiers who survived Hitler’s 1,000-mile death march across Europe in 1945, only has enough money to last another three months. Mr Clark’s son Mike, 58, has been in a two-year battle with Brent Council over funding his father’s care since the pensioner lost the use of his legs after a heart operation in 2012. Brent Council solicitor Fiona Bateman said in one letter: “The local authority believe it is entirely correct that residential care remains the preferred option to ensure that Mr Clark has access to 24 hour care and support that he requires. His family said he may have to sell his home and they fear being in a care home would kill him. Mr Clark, a father of two with four grandchildren and two great-grandchildren, said: I have been in my own place all my life. I have got everything here. My family are near and my friends are near. I am nice and comfortable here and I’d not get that in a care home. It would remind me of being a prisoner of war.

The proposed cuts to bus services in Brighton and Hove will detrimentally effect some of the most vulnerable areas of Brighton. Particularly the Meadowview area which is home to many low income families and pensioners who will be left completely cut off from the city. The cuts are to affect mostly evening, bank holiday and weekend services leaving many members of our community completely stranded after dark, unable to safely return home, or forced to walk a badly lit and sparsely populated stretches of road. Many of us who regularly use the bus services to Meadowview are disabled and are unable to climb Coombe or Bear road. We strongly oppose the proposed measures as they will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our area leaving them further disenfranchised and segregated from the wider community. Cutting bus services in a city which takes pride in its stance on social inclusion and sustainable development is reprehensible and will have a detrimental affect on some of the most vulnerable members of our community and our environment. We urge you to reconsider the proposed cuts and seek and alternative.

There are hundreds of acres of brownfield sites in the Stroud District which could be used to build the new housing required for the people of the Stroud District. However, developers don't want to build on these sites because it costs them more money than building on green fields.We should not allow the greed of developers to dictate local housing policy. If we still need more land for housing, once the brown field sites have been developed, we can then consider building on green field sites. The Government have said development should be on brownfield sites first so why aren't Stroud District council enforcing this policy? The Government have also said its a bottom up policy with local people deciding where houses should be built. This is our opportunity to tell Stroud District council.

For all disabled people to be able to travel on buses. I was asked to leave a "first" bus the other week with my husband because the driver felt the bus was over crowded and although there was a seat beside the stairs, he said I could not sit there as it was again health and safety regulations. As we got off, my husband noticed, there was in fact a space beside a buggy that was already there

Canal & River Trust (CART) declared on 13th February 2015 that from 1st May this year it will refuse to re-license all boats that “don’t move … far enough or often enough” to meet its Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring – unless they take a permanent mooring. This places boat families under unique pressure as many cannot afford a mooring. Many boat dwellers work locally and some are key workers. Many require access to local services such as health care and schools and will be put to extreme difficulty if forced to move unreasonable distances. Like it or not, socio-political realities have made the waterways an affordable housing resource for many families. Canal & River Trust has long denied this reality, describing themselves as a 'navigation authority' and harbouring a marked hostility towards the water-based community. This position is no longer tenable and CART needs to accept its responsibilities as a landlord. MORE INFORMATION CART's new policy sets requirements that go beyond those stated in Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Boat dwellers are happy to comply with the clearly stated, lawful requirement not to remain continuously in any one place for more than 14 days. However, the 1995 Act does not contain any requirement to travel a minimum distance or to follow any specific cruising pattern beyond the 14-day limit. The new policy means that boat dwellers are being forced to travel distances that put them out of reach of their jobs or their children's schools, and make it impossible for them to access health care or to stay near elderly relatives. If they choose to keep their homes they will be faced with the need to give up working, take their children out of school, miss out on vital health care and abandon elderly family members. If a boat licence is terminated, or renewal refused, the boat is then unlicensed. CART has the power under Section 8 (2) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to seize, remove and sell unlicensed boats from its waterways. Section 13 (3) (a) of the British Waterways Act 1971 gives CART the power to demolish a houseboat that it has seized. In cases where a boat is lived on, CART obtains a Court Order and also obtains an Injunction banning the boat dweller from ever returning to its waterways. Breach of an Injunction carries the penalty of arrest and imprisonment. Therefore, the boat dweller not only becomes homeless but loses the only asset that they own. Information provided in response to a Freedom of information request showed that in 2010-2011 the enforcement team had a target to seize 100 "non compliant" boats each year. When boats are seized, CART contracts with a firm of Bailiffs to tow the boat away and the Police are present. Permanent residential moorings that boat dwellers can legally live on are in very short supply. Where they exist, they are very expensive (up to £25,000 per year in London). The majority of marinas will turn you away if you live on your boat. Over 90% of permanent moorings are non-residential (“leisure moorings”). CART knows that if boat dwellers live on leisure moorings they risk having planning enforcement action taken against them for unauthorised residential use. In London and the south there is a severe shortage of moorings and mooring fees are vastly inflated. CART's own directly managed moorings are priced using an auction system where the highest bidder wins. Some private moorings have waiting lists of 9 years and more. There is no security of tenure for boat moorings so even if you do take a mooring, you could be evicted at the whim of the marina owner. CART is the largest inland navigation authority in the UK. It owns or manages some 80% of the waterways. The Environment Agency and other smaller bodies own and/or manage the remaining 20%. If CART refuses to renew the licence of a boat dweller, there are few, if any, other places that a boat dweller can take their boat. CART's latest move is yet another attack on the right to use and live on a boat without a permanent mooring; a right that Parliament enshrined in law in 1995 when it passed Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Before 1995 British Waterways (which became CART in 2012) sought powers to force all boats to have a mooring and criminal penalties against anyone caught living on their boat without a permanent residential mooring and a houseboat certificate. Parliament refused British Waterways these powers and acted to protect the 10,000 or so boat dwellers that would have become homeless in 1995 by wording Section 17 (3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 in such a way that it included a wide variety of patterns of boat use including those boat dwellers who needed to remain close to a place of work, children's education, health care or elderly relatives. The reasoning behind the wording of this section can be found in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that drafted the 1995 Act.

The Engine Shed is a renowned training scheme which has transformed the lives of young people with learning disabilities for the past 25 years. They have helped many young people with learning disabilities gain skills in a real work environment and supported them to move into mainstream, paid employment. Trainees work alongside staff in the vegetarian café, organic bakery, organic tofu production unit and conference centre while developing skills for life. The Engine Shed is due to close down on the 19th February, 2015, due to Edinburgh Council stopping its funding. The.council says it will replace this with a new supported employment system, but critics point out that over 75% of Remploy employees are still unemployed after its closure. Let's ask Edinburgh Council to think again!

Beach Road school was built in the 1800's and is a beautiful example of historical architecture. It has served as both an infant and junior school for thousands of pupils and also found usage in both the First and Second World War as an army hospital. It was closed in 2008 when the school was merged with William Gladstone. If properly looked after this building could stand for another 100 years, but, of course, the solution is simply to demolish it. Please, let's have our say and not let Sefton Council take the easy way out and demolish what could be a useful building. These decisions to demolish are usually met with regret in years to come as they will never be rebuilt and the history is forever lost. Stand up now while we can. Thanks for your support.

Hartlepool hospital has systematically been stripped of it's A&E department and virtually all of it's clinical and surgical services, on a vague promise that an alternative hospital would be built on land at Wynyard. Now, the North Tees and Hartlepool Trust, our local Hartlepool MP, Iain Wright and the Hartlepool Borough Council are all on public record saying this will never happen. It was completely foolhardy and indeed negligent of Hartlepool Borough Council to allow the sale of this land to happen under these circumstances. I believe it was complete madness to allow a perfectly good training hospital to be stripped of it's staff, resources, assets and have the very land it sits upon sold from under it, without a cast iron guarantee of a replacement. I feel that this has been done surreptitiously, without the prior knowledge, consultation or consent of the people of Hartlepool

It has been proven that alcohol consumption at Scottish football matches leads to increases in violence and domestic violence. The ban has the backing of leading anti-abuse charities and has made football family friendly and reduced cases of violence, it should not be reversed.