http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/child-protection-privatised

The transparency and accountability of the ICO is under the spotlight because section 14(1) VEXATIOUS decisions are being handed down on a whim by the ICO/Upper Tribunal and First Tier Tribunal and hundreds of rogue Public Authorities.Ditto for section 12(4)(b( of the EIR Act 2004. All these vexatious decisions are being handed out based on a court authority GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council ,which is still before the European Court of Human Rights Section 14(1) Vexatious decisions should be a LAST RESORT but since the Dransfield case decision in Jan 2013 it has been used as a FIRST CHOICE Nutcracker.

Last school holidays I took my two children on the number 14 bus to Victoria Park playground. The return fare for one adult and two children from Bear Flat was £10. That's £10 to travel about one and half miles to a local park. If a child needs to take the bus to school it costs a fortune. A weekly pass is £15.50. If two children take the bus it costs the family £31 a week. That works out at roughly £1,200 a year for two kids in term time alone. These prices are just not affordable. You responded to consumer pressure in Bristol and reduced the cost of bus travel. We are asking you to act fairly in Bath because right now most families are priced off your buses.

We the undersigned believe that in a multicultural city like London the important principle of ‘policing by consent’ remains a cornerstone of modern British policing. Under radical new arrangements for the Metropolitan Police Service community engagement strategy as proposed by the Mayor of London and agreed by Lambeth Council, Lambeth Police Consultative Group (CPCG), alongside all other local London CPCGs, has seen the Mayor’s Office cut funding completely with many such important groups being closed. We believe this to be a serious and critical error of judgement The Mayor seeks to replace CPCGs with his proposed local Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs) that, as currently conceived, will be far less representative than Lambeth CPCG in terms of diversity, gender, faith and youth. These proposals are currently subject to public consultation, amendment and agreement at local level by Borough Councils and Borough Commanders. It is our view that the proposed terms of reference and administrative arrangements for Lambeth SNB will be far less accessible to the general public, much less accountable in terms of its membership and , as a result, will enjoy very little credibility among alienated communities, many of which lack trust and confidence in Lambeth Police Service and other statutory agencies. Public trust in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is central to and a prerequisite for ensuring the effective policing of crime and for improving levels of community safety. A modern, multicultural borough like Lambeth suffering high levels of deprivation, youth unemployment and crime requires a credible, inclusive, accessible public forum open to all. Lambeth CPCG has a long track record of innovation in challenging police malpractice and thus improving operational policing and MPS policy. For thirty years Lambeth CPCG has routinely held monthly public meetings attended by MPS Borough Commanders alongside their senior management teams. Also in regular attendance Lambeth officers, Councillors and other important key local stakeholders and members of civil society. Lambeth CPCG facilitates what can often be quite difficult and fraught discussions directly between statutory agencies and local communities on a range of policing related issues, for example the nature of ethical professional policing, in addition to discussions on priorities for crime prevention and reduction and community safety initiatives. One of the strengths of the CPCG is that any member of the public can walk in off the street, giving them unprecedented access to senior MPS officers and local officials tasked with reducing crime and improving public confidence. We believe the principles of independence, open access, inclusivity and accountability all inform the extent to which such forums are viewed as credible. We consider them to be fundamental to maintaining a legitimate and effective forum for ongoing police-community engagement. The central importance of this issue was recognised and highlighted by Lord Scarman in his seminal report into the causes of the 1981 Brixton disturbances; community engagement, trust and confidence were all cited as critically important factors in the maintenance of credible and effective police-community relations. This remains just as true today as it was in 1981. The Coalition Government report ‘Riot Communities and Victims Panel’ into the causes of the August 2011 disturbances recommended that ‘police forces proactively engage with communities about the impact on the perceptions of their integrity.’ The central importance of ensuring public access to timely meetings, agendas and minutes, the ability of the public and the press to raise issues of concern, to engage and ask questions of the SNB in public are considered optional in the current Draft Terms of Reference for Lambeth SNB, recently published for consultation. We believe Lambeth’s current proposals are deeply flawed and will further erode police accountability. In such high crime, tough to police areas, like Lambeth, any erosion of police accountability is likely to lead to increased community tensions. Given the challenging local history of police community relations, added to the current backdrop of legitimate public concerns about the disproportionate use of stop and search powers, deaths in police custody, allegations that MPS undercover officers spied on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, the Mark Kennedy scandal and, of course, Plebgate means that in boroughs such as Lambeth trust and confidence in the MPS remains dangerously low. Whatever the new arrangements, we believe it is vital that the important principles cited above, derived at great expense, often through the tragic, fraught and sometimes extraordinarily difficult policing experience of local communities, are both respected and maintained.

In April 2013 a weedkiller (this was the heavily toxic Glymark) was sprayed around the circumference of Camden Square. All visible wildlife immediately disappeared. No birds, no squirrels - absolutely nothing. For three months no birds flew through the square. Even the ravens, hardy carrion crow, were nowhere to be seen. Local councillors and environmentalists came down to the square to witness the devastation. It was agreed that no chemicals would be used on Camden Square for a period of a year and the wildlife monitored. We have actually succeeded in keeping Camden Square pesticide free for two and a half years. But the Councillors want to change that now....... On Thursday 12th November this year, at a meeting about the “improvement and maintenance” of the Square, the big guns were wheeled out with the attendance of no less than THREE Camden Councillors! The decision was reversed, without giving the community a chance to martial the numerous local opponents of the spraying of glyphosate. Councillor Phil Jones stated that there is a HUGE BUDGET to be spent on the square and yet he cannot afford the expense of a little hand weeding? He claimed that our petition had only 200 signatures to date (seriously untrue!) and that there was a lack of support for keeping the Square chemical free. Angela Mason denied even attending the meeting in April 2013 where she observed the absence of wildlife and that birds had stopped flying through the Square. Her tune has now changed. As we know, London is heavily polluted. Camden Square is a sanctuary hidden right in the heart of it all that still remains. It is a valuable and ancient lung. The attendees at this “Camden Square Community Meeting” showed no resistance to proposals to tear up all beautiful rose bushes and axe the central horse chestnut tree, as they find it “ugly”. It took a whole year for the square to be repopulated with wildlife. It is of the utmost urgency that Camden Council enforces a total ban of the use of ALL chemicals on the square. The current threat is Glymark, which contains Glyphosate. Glymark/Round Up/Glyphosate is created and distributed by corporate giant Monsanto, the inventors of the deadly weapon Agent Orange, which devastated Vietnam and its people during the Vietnam War. Monsanto sadly has huge respectability, with high-level supporters and even an American law, which states they can never be held responsible if their products are proved to be harmful to humans or animals. http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-protection-act-signed-by-obama-gmo-bill-written-by-monsanto-signed-into-law/5329388 Monsanto are leaders of the GM revolution, which means that 90% of US crops are now genetically modified. According to e-newsletter “Sustainable Pulse” and many other studies, “For the past 35 years Monsanto has known of the link between glyphosate and cancer, but has systematically worked to cover it up through scientifically fraudulent methods in its safety testing research programme.….. For the first time the authors, Dr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, presented in tabulated form the data contained in secret Monsanto studies conducted in the period 1980 – 1990, which showed unequivocally that animals exposed to different quantities of glyphosate in their food supply developed tumorigenic growth in multiple organs.” “Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing”. American news sources declared in September 2015: Holland is the latest European country to forbid the use of glyphosates in eg. residential areas. These chemicals are toxic, not only to the environment, but also to human beings and pets, causing permanent damage to eyesight and respiratory disorders. Toddlers and children frequent the square and will be at severe risk. Please sign with urgency to stop the destruction of Camden Square wildlife. An ultimate ban on such toxic chemicals in Camden, London and further is the ultimate goal. Here's the article from Camden New Journal in 2014: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2014/may/councils-chemical-weedkiller-burned-pet-dogs-and-killed-squirrels-campaigners-claim. Digging Camden Square all up, chemicalising it, re-sculpting it just to qualify the spending of a budget, plus pandering to some deeply un-naturalistic homeowners who want to feel that they are presiding as in Hampton Court, is a crime against our ancient and beautiful Square.

Barker-Mill Estates, a large local landowner, plan to build 11 houses on pristine fields inside the New Forest National Park and the plans look like the first phase of a large development If these plans go ahead it will set a precedent for developers all over Britain to build on greenfield sites inside our National Parks. This proposed development site is on the edge of the village of Ashurst inside the New Forest National Park. The fields are currently used as grazing land for horses and are situated next to the local schools. Barker-Mill Estates have offered to build a car park and cycle/footpath for the local schools in exchange for the schools' support for their building proposals. We support safer access to the schools and urge Barker-Mill Estates to provide the proposed cycle/footpath whilst protecting the fields.

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

The current uncontrolled and incoherent construction of high-rise buildings dominating the London skyline to the detriment of both local areas and the city's general appearance needs to be brought under control. According to the Evening Standard, planning permission has been given for a further 288 high-rises, with who knows how many more to come? A coherent, effective and independent process (including proper consultation with those who will be most affected by the new buildings) that takes into account the visual, social and economic impact on those who have to live and work in their shadows needs to be established, preventing the permanent destruction of the city for the benefit of a few property developers and absentee owners. London desperately needs both affordable and social housing for those of us who work and try to live in the city, but these towers are no answer to that, and instead replace much-loved and familiar streetscapes that can offer the high-density, low-rise accommodation that most people want. Their architecture is all too often either mediocre or the result of famous architects exercising their egos at our expense; in addition to which too many are built and bought by overseas purchasers seeking to secure their wealth in empty properties in London, bringing no tax benefits to the city itself and exacerbating the lack of affordable housing for the rest of us. At the moment great stretches of the Thames are being walled-off by dismal glass towers for the private enjoyment of their occupants (to the extent that they are occupied) and the exclusion of all others. Even the status of Houses of Parliament as a Unesco World Heritage site is threatened by these invasive monsters. Offering £5000 in compensation to people whose houses would be permanently deprived of direct sunlight (as was recently offered by property developers on the Mount Pleasant site) is not only insulting but an admission of the deleterious effect these buildings can have on their neighbours. We need all those, including the millions of tourists who visit us every year, who love the chaotic, multitudinous, living creature that is London, to make known their rejection of these tacky gleaming stakes through its heart.

To the residents of Exeter, people who work in Exeter and visit Exeter, together with those who love Exeter… In an increasingly commercialised world, people should have the freedom to choose when they are exposed to advertising. In public open spaces we should be free from private and commercial interest and advertising should not be allowed to disfigure our city. We are Citizens not Consumers. Imaging how much more beautiful our city could be if it were not covered up by ugly advertising hoardings. Sao Paulo, Auckland, Bergen, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, and 1,500 towns throughout the world have already banned external advertising. In the UK, Bristol has a campaign to ban outdoor adverts. Plymouth has already banned adverts for pay-day loan companies, whilst Leeds, Newcastle and Bristol are considering it. We should add our wonderful city to the growing movement to reclaim our open spaces. CONSUMER PRESSURE: Excessive advertising encourages us to run ever faster on the treadmill of modern consumer life with damaging consequences. It contributes to growing consumer debt and to the consumption of ever increasing amounts of the earth’s finite resources. Additionally advertising is increasingly sowing the seeds of unhappiness by persuading the consumer to be dissatisfied with what they have got, and so creating an artificial need to buy the next thing. Evidence from the Good Childhood Inquiry indicates that the most vulnerable groups to commercial pressures - children and young people - show higher rates of mental health problems. Removing advertising in public spaces, such as billboards, would free us in our outdoor environment from the pressure to consume and allow us to see previously obscured parts of our city. Any remaining empty spaces can be reclaimed for the purpose of art, poetry and inspiring social campaigns (e.g. volunteering, encouraging recycling). VISUAL POLLUTION: Currently there are laws on air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution - now is the time to take back our city from this visual pollution so that we can be citizens rather than just consumers. There is no doubt that the removal of advertising can change the appearance of our city enormously and allow us to see parts of the city previously hidden to us, opening up new exciting vistas. For more information see – “The Advertising Effect” http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/the-advertising-effect-how-do-we-get-the-balance-of-advertising-right/ Joint campaign by Exeter Friends of the Earth and Steady State Devon

Full stripes have been an Albion tradition for over 100 years but the apparent design will render them almost invisible. The change of design has been introduced witjhout consultation with supporters, most of whom seem to be opposed to the new look. Football support should be about heritage and identity not just marketing gimmicks to try to make new merchandising opportunities. * Petitioners will refuse to buy new shirt designs and associated merchandise.

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

The number 30 bus from Richmond to Keld in North Yorkshire is very important to me as it is my lifeline. Living in a rural area, independence is very important for me but following cuts by North Yorkshire County Council my bus service has been withdrawn completely meaning a loss of independence which in turn has triggered a return of severe depression and anxiety. I travel by bus regularly for my dentist,doctors and psychiatric appointments all of which are over 9 miles away. I am now no longer able to go shopping and do any kind of leisure pursuits with my son as I am unable to get a connection from Richmond to travel by train should I wish to do so. My son who also uses the bus has now had to stop drama classes as he can no longer get home in the evening. The loss of this service is having a detrimental impact on my state of mind and well-being and we feel our right to public transport has been taken away leaving us in total isolation. Richmond our nearest town is over 20 miles away. I cannot drive and I am unable to afford a taxi or costs of other transport as I live on a limited budget. Having to move away from this area would have a devastating impact on my mental health as I would have to leave my job, where my employers are totally supportive of my mental illness, my home where my landladies are also supportive of my mental illness. Many other people in the surrounding areas have also been badly affected. Both the Government and local council must understand that cutting bus services to make short term savings has hugely detrimental effects on people. Upper Swaledale also gets a lot of tourists and walkers along the Coast 2 Coast path and Pennine Way during the year who also use the bus services. Cutting off access to the countryside means that businesses and the tourist industry will also suffer. Please sign my petition to Leader of North Yorkshire County Council: Councillor John Weighell calling for them to think again and reinstate the number 30 bus service between Richmond to Keld.