The time has come for us all to stand together and show Medway Council and Developers that we will no longer sit by and watch further urbanization of Hoo, We will no longer sit and watch the disgraceful way Medway Council has all but abandoned the people of Hoo, Yes they are very vocal in their opposition to the airport and the Lodge Hill plan, but where are their voices opposing the creeping Development around our homes, Where is their commitment to rural communities like Hoo. Now is the time to ask those political parties whom will be looking for your votes next year what they are doing about the destruction of farming lands to build more and more homes, and the impact of such developments on those already living here and coping with crumbling roads, overcrowded schools, second rate medical provision where waiting times for doctor’s appointment grow daily, a local hospital in special measures, the closing of the last bank on the peninsula …… the list grows longer weekly

The NHS is prided on being free at the point of delivery, in Northern Ireland we deliver our health service under the banner of the NHS and the ethos of free at the point of delivery should never be changed. GP's deal with up to 90% of face to face contact of patients within the NHS, their contribution cannot be measured with a contact fee. As potential patients we have already received directions not to attend A&E's and to first consider vising a GP, GP waiting lists are in the extreme and practices are already struggling to meet the demand placed on them on top of having to cover unfilled doctor posts in Hospitals as well as their own general Practice. Some GP surgeries are beginning to to look like our crowed A&E waiting rooms with patients queuing up for appoints in the mornings due to the limited capacity of GP practices. Growing waiting lists for outpatient and day case procedures are leading to more patients visiting their GP to ensure that their illness has not got worse while waiting for treatment. In a recent poll by doctors in the British Medical Association, BMA, doctors overwhelmingly voted not to introduce a GP charge at its 2014 annual GP conference in York. "Dr Laurence Buckman, a GP from London, added the idea was "unethical, dangerous and disingenuous". Dr Chaand Nagpaul said general practice was becoming "conveyor belt medicine". "Add to this the sheer volume of phone calls, visits, repeat prescriptions, results, reports and hospital correspondence and we have an unmanageable, exhausting and unsustainable workload that puts safety and quality at risk,"

In highly competitive markets that favour sellers, such as that in London at present, house sellers often renege on the agreement to sell, or increase the price after accepting an offer. This is distressing, time-consuming and costly for buyers, who are already faced with rapidly increasing house prices. Some buyers go through this process several times, costing them thousands of pounds in wasted fees. Vendors can continue to remarket properties, often through different agents, once sales have been agreed. The sales process is slowed down, buyers are misled and some agents do not receive their fees. Many house sales form part of a chain. If one person in the chain reneges on their agreement, this has financial and emotional implications for many others. Through no fault of their own, buyers miss out on houses, prices must be renegotiated or extra funds found. All this causes distress and increased financial pressure. Until completion, there is no guarantee or protection for buyers or sellers. This makes an already stressful process even more painful, frustrating and costly than it needs to be. In Scotland, there is far more protection. Should the seller attempt to accept a higher bid after a written offer and acceptance, their solicitor will refuse to act for them as this, according to the Law Society of Scotland code of practice, would be professional misconduct. The same rules should apply to England and Wales. This will reduce house price inflation, and make the process fairer and more transparent.

We are endeavouring to create a country park on the only existing green space left in Whitstable. It is our intention to restore ancient woodland by planting a large number of native trees, creating a large wildlife meadow, a community park with first class disabled access, a safe and natural environment for child to play in and working with and the guidance of Kent Wildlife Trust in order to improve the area.

East Lothian Council should not be able to dictate to their tenants what animals they can keep, unless the animal causes damage to the property or is a danger to the public. So if you have a GUINEA PIG, RAT, CHINCHILLAS, DEGUS, TURTLE, CHIPMUNK, SNAKE, LIZARD, GECKO, SCORPION, AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG, FROGS, TOADS, NEWTS, SALAMANDERS, STICK INSECTS, ANY INVERTEBRATE, TARANTULAS, SPIDERS, AFRICAN LAND SNAILS OR ANYTHING REMOTELY EXOTIC YOU WILL BE MADE TO GET RID OF THEM.

I would like to ask you do something about the horrendous waste of resources regarding supermarkets and food packaging companies. Supermarkets own brand products are generally cheaper, but my observation is that this comes at the expense of using non recyclable packaging. All large companies even Aldi which gives a large well informed pledge to their commitment to the environment and yet at the same time most of their products packaging is non-recyclable? other large chains sell their own brand products too, again a lot of these seem to come also in non recyclable packages. In this day and age when we are being encouraged, and some do their utmost, to recycle as much as we can our bins are stuffed with this stuff which ends up in landfill- What is going on? why if some companies can do it then why not all. All our food should come this way - Also less of it too, as its totally unnecessary!

According to the Huffington Post Boris Johnson accuses the Ukip voting as 'a peasants revolt'! Therefore, he clearly sees us all as peasants. because of this he should resign as the mayor of London.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are forced/pressured into unsupervised contact orders every year, between their children and the perpetrators who abused them. This is because the UK law states that it is in the 'child's best interest to have two parents', regardless of whether there is a history of violence. The government has limited funding for contact centres, so unless violence has been proven to have happened 'towards children' (many parents shield their children from this happening) in the majority of cases contact is ordered, and moves out of contact centres as quickly as possible. This frequently happens after risk assessments are ordered. Perpetrators are offered an opportunity to offer excuses for the abuse, to discredit victims. Abuse can then be cited as the result of a bad relationship – thus eliminating the risk as the relationship has ended - so contact can be moved out of contact centres. Saving the government substantial costs in the long term. Anger management and domestic violence courses may be ordered, but these offer no guarantees. What isn't acknowledged is the effect the violence and emotional abuse has on the abused parents. The abuse may not be aimed directly at children - often because the abused parents shield them and take the abuse themselves - but any parent who has been punched, choked, kicked, verbally abused, bullied, and demeaned, will feel extremely anxious about unsupervised access. It's common for perpetrators to seek contact, knowing that it will cause victims further distress. Many victims of abuse are so distressed at the idea of unsupervised contact orders, they are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated. Medication has side-effects. In a recent study of 1,829 people who have taken antidepressants in the past five years, led by Professor John Read, University of Liverpool, 60% of participants reported 'feeling emotionally numb', 52% 'feeling not like myself', 42% reduction in positive feelings, and 39% reported caring less about others. These side effects aren't in children's best interests. Yet parents are forced/pressured into a position, in that if they struggle with anxiety or depression, as a result of unsupervised contact orders, they risk being labelled 'fragile' and losing their children. Either into care, or to the abusive parent (who can then state he or she is reformed) because the primary carer is then considered an 'emotional risk'. The UK is one of the only countries to remove children for such a reason. I believe this is wrong. In cases in that parents have been found guilty of significant abuse towards their partners, risk assessments should be carried out by specialist domestic violence workers, to help find a way forward for contact to progress that is safe for chidren, and that doesn't subject victims to further distress. This does not necessarily mean no contact, or long-term contact in contact centres (as understandably funding is short.) In many cases contact could be supervised into the long term by a party the primary carer feels assured by, without over night contact. This would significantly reduce emotional distress, which would be positive for both children and victims of domestic violence into the long term. Fear leads to poor mental health, dysfunction and addictions (all a strain on public funding.) It can also lead to desperate-measures; Parents have fled the UK to escape such contact orders. Only to be brought back under the Hague Convention, to lose their children forever for seeking to protect them. Children's best interests should be paramount. But the fundamental flaw in the current law, is that it neglects to take into account parental emotional wellbeing. If primary carers are subjected to significant stress, this inevitably effects children. Although this is recognised in court proceedings, and is intended to be taken into account, there is a SERIOUS CONFLICT; The current UK law states that children can be removed from parents who 'pose emotional risk', Because of this there is reluctance from parents to admit to struggling with court orders. Any parent who has been violently attacked over many years, by his or her partner, will inevitably feel afraid of unsupervised/unsupported contact. This is not because he or she is mentally ill, or of a fragile disposition, it is because parents instinctively look to protect their children. Take the ability to protect your children away from you and it leads to distress. I believe it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents. But I believe it is equally important for parents who have been abused not to be subjected to further distress. This isn't in children's best interests. Nor for children to be put at further risk of abuse. I ask for re-assurance for victims of domestic violence, that children be kept safe. Please sign this petition and share it! Thank you! Zoe.

I like many others began my love of literature reading "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" I have re-read them both several times in adulthood. In addition to being entertaining, the book's have powerful messages of fairness, equality and compassion. Our Children deserve to be taught in a balanced way and monumental decisions like this should be made by the experts. The National curriculum should be in the best interest of the pupils and not the whim of someone who "doesn't like them"

We feel the BBC News coverage of the European and Local Elections has, to date, been unfairly biased against the Green Party. This bias is not only evident in the almost complete absence of coverage of the Green Party during the European and Local Election results, but also prior to this during the campaign for the elections on Thursday 22nd May and in the months since. Whilst we understand that UKIP made gains in the Local Elections, it has gone largely unreported that the Green Party currently have a total of 162 Councillors and are now the official opposition in Liverpool, Solihull, Islington, Lewisham, and Norwich (15 councillors to Labour's 21). They gained two seats in Bristol, one with over 47% of the vote and retained a third seat, bringing the total to 6. In addition to their many councillors, the Green Party also have one MP, one member of the House of Lords, three MEPs, three MSPs (Scottish Greens), two London Assembly members, as well as a Green-led Council in Brighton & Hove. UKIP don't have any MSPs, London Assembly members, or run a Council. In the European Election coverage the Green Party were only very sporadically and reluctantly mentioned by the BBC. A representative of the Green Party (Leader Natalie Bennett) was not interviewed until 2:30am (26/5/14) on BBC One's Vote 2014, members of the other four parties were interviewed multiple times prior to this. The Today programme (R4) news summary at 8:30am (26/5/14) mentioned the Lib Dems in 5th place, but there was no mention of the Greens, let alone their being in 4th. These are just a couple of examples of the blatant refusal by the BBC to acknowledge the Green Party's successes. Seeing as the results of the European Elections placed the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems they should surely be treated as a Major Party, especially as UKIP are treated as such whilst not having had an MP until four months after these elections took place. The Green's membership has increased by 45% since January. They should receive coverage reflective of their successes and a chance to share the political floor with Farage et al not only during and in the lead-up to elections, but also in the interim period on programmes such as Newsnight and Question Time and in any Leaders' Debates. Incidentally, from the beginning of January 2014 until 22nd May 2014 Question Time has featured five UKIP representatives and only one Green representative (Caroline Lucas). Most despicable of all was how, in much of the BBC's coverage of the election results, the Green Party were consistently lumped in with the 'Others' category and often removed altogether from statistical evidence. This is an insult to the 8% who voted for them - 1.2million members of the British public. The BBC prides itself on painting a fair and unbiased picture of events, however in this case we feel they have not done so. All parties should receive fair, impartial coverage, whether they be Left, Right, or Centre. This apparent news blackout of the Green Party by a much respected taxpayer-funded corporation is incredibly disturbing and must not be allowed to continue. *This petition has been edited to keep its content up to date with the changing political climate*

The so called 'National roll-out of fibre broadband' is being funded by public money and we - the public - need to be given full access to the matter. The BT Telephone service side of the business (which does the talking to customers ...) should be given access to the data, owned by BT Openreach, to ensure that any telephone user ... interested in using fast fibre access to the broadband network ... can obtain an honest and complete answer as to when, and by what method - and at what price - they will be provided with the connection capability to the fibre broadband network.

Sefton Park Meadows are a unique green space heritage belonging to the City and people of Liverpool. They are of great ecological and environmental value and have existed since 1872 when Sefton Park was opened. Sefton Park Meadows are a grand sweeping tree-lined entrance to Sefton Park in a conservation area and within the significant setting of the English Heritage Grade 1 designated Sefton Park. The people of Liverpool have vociferously told the Mayor and Council of Liverpool over the last year to Save Sefton Park Meadows. A preferred developer is to be announced in the near future, followed by a planning application. It is not too late to decide to leave the site as it is, as a significant part of Sefton Park for the benefit of generations to come, as it has been since 1872.