Teignbridge District Council intends to issue a compulsory purchase order to force a a farmer off his farm in Devon so that they can use the land for a country park for SANGS (sustainable alternative natural green-space). The farm land has been farmed by the same family for over 60 years, and is a mixture of arable, sheep and cows. The council maintain that they are required to offset the loss of land a couple of miles away, and that they need to provide alternative green space. However, putting a park on this farmer’s land would require car parks to be built, possibly another road, and people using it would need to drive there. Warren Farm is adjacent to South West Water’s sewage works, and we understand that Natural England advises that ‘Sangs’ should not be in close proximity. (Appendix 4: Natural England SANGS Guidance dated 03.07.07, "SANGS must be free from unpleasant intrusions (e.g. sewage treatment works smells etc"). Cllr John Goodey, of Teignbridge District Council, states that Warren Farm would be the ideal location for the SANGS (necessary because of the 1,200 new homes being built in Dawlish), and that it ticks all the boxes for Natural England. As well as being adjacent to a sewage works for South West Water, it is Grade 1 agricultural land. In Exminster, still managed by TDC, the land for SANGS was provided by the developers when they built all the new houses there. If Cllr Goodey states that this SANGS location is ideal as it would protect the nature reserve at Dawlish Warren, why did Teignbridge D.C. give permission for houses to built there a few years ago - Sandpipers Court - if they are so concerned. The farm has been farmed with countryside preservation to the fore for the last decade, and it is a habitat and feeding ground of the endangered cirl bunting, and also the endangered snipe. The way that the Warren Farm is managed benefits the local environment and wildlife through countryside stewardship, and should be promoted and recognised. How can it be morally justified that a council can force a farmer off his land and out of business in order to provide land for green space in order that developers can build houses on other green space? The land is being usefully used for agriculture, and is not an eyesore, and there are public footpaths across and around some of the fields. It is both morally and ethically wrong to prevent a farmer from growing food on a well-managed farm in this world of food shortages. There is land currently for sale in close vicinity, why can the council not buy that land which is actually for sale? Another option would be to open up the Cofton woodland walks to the general public - the land is presently already parkland and goes down to the Warren, and this could be arranged with the owners without putting them out of business. Alternatively, Cllr Humphrey Clemens is a tenant farmer on farmland owned by Devon County Council, part of which is on the coast adjacent to Smugglers' Inn, and has excellent, possibly even better coastal views than Warren Farm. This land is already owned by Devon C.C., so should be a much cheaper option, and would have the added benefit of attracting people away from the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, and thereby protecting it. Britain...imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising (http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.html, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), so why are we getting rid of quality farmland, if this plan by Teignbridge DC goes ahead. If this compulsory purchase order of quality working farm-land is allowed to go ahead, what is there to prevent Teignbridge District Council issuing further compulsory purchase orders in the future? We the undersigned hereby oppose Teignbridge District Council's proposed compulsory purchase order of Warren Farm, and urge you to use your powers in Government to prevent this.

I feel that this is a truely shocking piece of news that the BBC are keeping this money in a bank account gaining interest and investing it in other things and all the while they want us to keep donating. The Slogan for the appeal say's All the money raised goes to children in Need. I beleave this is a kick in the teeth to many wonderful people who spend hard earned cash to donate to such a wonderful cause. Please tell the BBC to get this money to those who need it and stop making money from it for themselves.

Dr Gilbert worked tirelessly trying to save the children of Gaza during the recent bombing campaign by Israel, the Israeli government are attempting to silence him for speaking out about the atrocities that he witnessed first hand, Dr Gilbert carried out great humanitarian work in the most difficult of circumstances, banning from entering Gaza for like is tantamount to a kind of punishment and is certainly not the actions of a 'democratic government' http://bit.ly/1sMZrV3

The Disabled Student’s Allowance (DSA) is a fund that covers the additional costs of attending university with a disability. It has enabled many thousands of students in the U.K to access higher education where this otherwise would not have been a possibility. A key part of the allowance goes to providing the assistance of support workers. Support workers see students regularly, depending on the student's needs, and are one of the most important aspects of support for students with disabilities at university. The government are proposing a cut to DSA that would remove the funding for a support worker (for full details of what aspects of DSA are being cut and which are remaining in place please see the link below(2)). According to a 2014 study by Randstad: “More than one in three students with a disability (34%) say they would definitely not have attended university without DSA support, while a further 36% are unsure if they would have originally attended. Less than one in three students with a disability (30%) would still definitely have decided to go to university without the support of the DSA.(1)” I am a support worker myself, and two of the students I support have said that they would not have made it through the first year of University without the support they received. I have seen first-hand what a difference the presence of support workers make to students’ experiences of university. It is in the Government’s interests, also, for the funding for support workers to be in place. In the long term, there is much more money to be saved by enabling a large proportion of people with disabilities to enter into work, and hence less reliant on the welfare system, by providing access to higher education. Disabled students who are granted DSA, assigning them support workers, are much more likely to complete their course and get a higher grade(1). The government are defending their decision to make cuts to DSA based on the fact that Higher Education Institutions would be obliged to fund support workers. Although, in theory, this is a legal requirement on the part of Higher Academic Institutions, this would create a market where admitting students with a disability would cost the university a great deal more than non-disabled students, and would result in some universities not providing the necessary quality or quantity of support. For more information on this issue please visit (1) http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/november/fight-dsa-cut and for the original statement from David Willetts see (2) https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/higher-education-student-support-changes-to-disabled-students-allowances-dsa. If you agree that a cut to DSA funding of support workers is unacceptable, please sign this petition. I will be writing to the three Brighton MPs for delivery on the 20th November, asking them to please vote against this decision, so the matter can come up for debate, and hope to have a wealth of signatures to back my request. Many Thanks, Priya.

There are many people speaking openly online about the fact that this is far from historic and is still going on now and as well as parties from both houses the suspects go into the church and royal family at the highest levels. if a small amount of the allegations are real then we have the right to know and the appropriate parties should be removed from office and society. If any of us were suspected you would be in custody NOW, there wouldn't be an "inquiry" into it simple POLICE ACTION and that's what we need

In the UK about 70 crops are dependent on, or benefit from, visits from bees. In addition, bees pollinate the flowers of many plants which become part of the feed of farm animals. The economic value of honey bees and bumble bees as pollinators of commercially grown insect pollinated crops in the UK has been estimated at over £200 million per year. Bees are in danger of disappearing from our environment. Farming practices continue to disturb the natural habitats and forage of solitary and bumblebees at a rate which gives them little chance for re-establishment. The honey bee is already under attack from mites & diseases and it is only the treatment and care provided by beekeepers that is keeping colonies alive. Most wild honey bee colonies have died out . There is no effective cure for small hive beetle other than the destruction of affected colonies. Small hive beetle in the UK would be a disaster for our bees & once here would be very difficult to remove Please Help

Once again our papers are full of yet another banking scale - this time fined £2.6 billion for manipulating a market worth £5 trillion, markets that affect companies, families and communities the world over. Yet since the 2008 financial crisis the number of bankers jailed for corrupt practices can be counted on two hands. In no other part of society would corrupt practice be so tolerated. Enough is enough, jail those involved in this most recent scandal and pass legislation that makes those at the top of our major financial institutions personally responsible for the conduct of their traders.

Because these people affect our every day life and by their cheating and gambling

It should reduce corruption in the arms trade and make governments more accountable to the people they serve. Savile gets Investigated and Exposed after Death, Same for the Thatchers. (1 living and 1 dead)

Cystic Fibrosis is a condition that affects over 10,000 people in the UK, patients consume a large amount of Antibiotics over their shortened lifespans. Cystic Fibrosis is only missing from the "exempt from prescription charges" list because when the list was written, no one over the age of 18 was alive with the condition. A shocking justification for harvesting cash of patients who have no control over the prescriptions they are issued. It is unfair that a lot of less serious conditions get all prescriptions for free, while CF sufferers cannot get vital drugs without a cost.

Ordinary people must surely have the basic democratic right to be consulted, scrutinise, and have a say in ANY changes, welcome or otherwise, to the way they are governed, including on any regional 'devolution' proposal affecting them. This would include whether they actually want it or not, and if they do, such things as what region they might be part of, and what any "devolved" decision making powers and financial settlement might go with it. The 'Greater Manchester Agreement' does not provide for any of these things, but rather the very opposite, the entire 'devolution package' being conditional on the imposition on the people of Greater Manchester, without any reference to their views on the subject whatsoever, of a directly elected Mayor for Greater Manchester; a form of local Government, which other than in one of Greater Manchester's 10 local authority areas, has been either directly rejected by voters, or by local Councils themselves for their own areas. There are also many other financial arrangements that will come into effect, the details of, and full implications of which, could have considerable impact on everyone's lives, but which, without the proper public scrutiny the 'Greater Manchester Agreement' denies, every one of us will have to put up with for potentially many years to come, whatever the Greater Manchester public thinks about it. Such an apparent contempt for the views of Greater Manchester residents is simply unacceptable in our opinion. We believe that any transitional arrangements for the Agreement's implementation, including the appointment of an interim Mayor (who could remain in place until 2017) should be immediately stopped, and only re-started, if at all, on the basis of a positive mandate from a referendum as called for and outlined above.

Some war widows/widowers will still be disadvantaged and discriminated against even after changes to the scheme being introduced from April 2015. It has been widely reported that all widows/widowers would receive a war widows pension for life, even after remarriage, as a result of these changes which were to reflect the governments commitment to the Forces Covenant. This is not the case. Widows/widowers of service personnel, who paid the ultimate sacrifice between April 1973 and April 2005 and later remarried, had their pensions withdrawn and these will NOT be reinstated. This is simply unfair, unjust and not in the true spirit of the Forces Covenant. Discrimination like this should not be tolerated in a democratic society. After all, these service personnel gave their lives to uphold the principles we hold dear of justice and democracy. We should honour their memory and right this wrong. Please sign this petition, share on Facebook and if you feel strongly email your MP.