We, the undersigned, are students, alumni and staff of Royal Holloway, University of London concerned about the recent pay rises awarded the Principal Paul Layzell. In 2012-2013, Professor Layzell was awarded an £8,000 pay rise of 3%, which he is yet to justify and we still do not know whether he was in receipt of a pay rise in 2013-2014.

Green Fields and Wild Life habitats will be lost forever. Local people want to preserve the countryside for future generations, their wishes should be respected, the Localism Act should be honoured. Impacts on local communities are being ignored by Planners who have complete dis-regard for others, value of land is at a premium, greedy people are making money at the expense of the environment and the people that live there.

The Jam Butty Camp has provided generations of Salfordian school children with the experience of a holiday by the sea, many of which would have never had the chance of a holiday under normal circumstances. Over the years it has supported our City and so when under attack we come to its aid and in turn support it. The camp is just as much a part of Salford as the Civic Centre you all inhabit, and should be protected at all costs. The purpose of this facility is just as relevant today as it was when it was first set up, and by the councils own admission the City and its people are suffering from the austerity cuts, and for many children this will be the only chance they have of having a holiday away from City life. This camp holds a special place in the hearts of many Salfordian's and should be immune to the Councils cuts on the grounds it provides a special service to Salford which is priceless.

We need to commemorate those people who helped others by their selfless efforts to improve the lot of the many.

Richmond Park is a National Nature Reserve, an SSSI and a Grade 1 Listed landscape. The weekend closure would not only enhance the experience for cyclists and other users but would also promote the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural and physical environment of the Park, and its peace and natural beauty for the benefit the public and future generations. The park is a great asset for SW London, it should be a safe place for families to explore and for people to ride bicycles around without having the roads jammed up with cars.

England is a democratic country. People should have a say in their local affairs. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has granted 4 Fracking licences for Somerset, for a large area including the Mendips, Wells, Shepton Mallet, Pilton, Bruton. PEDL 225 (Wells, Shepton etc) runs from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2039! It's quite surprising that a licence with such long-term and potentially devastating effects could be granted quietly without local people being informed or having any say in it. In order to be able to start fracking, the fracking company needs to get a PEDL licence, a lease from the local landowner and planning permission from the local authority (Somerset County Council). That's the situation at the moment, but the government is already taking steps to change the process to cut out the local authority's involvement so that the Secretary of State can give permission using the "streamlined planning regime" set out in the Planning Act 2008. The government has also just changed the planning laws (in January) so that fracking companies no longer have to notify landowners or homeowners that they are going to frack under their property - all they have to do is put a notice in the paper. In order to make enough money/find enough gas, there will have to be 2000 wells across the Mendips. A huge amount of infrastructure will be required to make the whole thing work. Hundreds of lorries will have to travel to and from the area during the whole time the wells are being prepared and used. An enormous amount of water (from local water sources) will be used, polluted and then required to be dealt with. There will be 3000-19000 cubic metres of "flowback" (the fracturing fluid injected into the shale with chemicals during fracking) per well. This "wastewater" returns to the surface and needs to be treated, so additional infrastructure will be required for this and extra vehicle movements to take it away. After the area has been fracked for a period of years with the accompanying industrialisation/devastation of the area the fracking company will leave. They will then come back and refrack it about 10 years later. This may be done several times for each well. There are huge concerns over the safety of fracking. Chemicals are injected into the land during the process and 25-75% of them remain in the land afterwards, having the potential to get into our water, air and land. Fracking companies are allowed to keep the exact details about which chemicals they are using secret. There is no duty on the fracking companies to take out insurance against the risk of contamination because the government considered this would "add to existing regulation". The government clearly hopes to get fracking started in this country whether or not people want it, and in the quietest way possible. This is undemocratic. A fracking company already wants to start exploring areas of the Mendips (including Ston Easton) and they are applying for planning permission to start production in Keynsham this year. People who live in Somerset should be kept informed about these proposals which are going to have a huge and long lasting effect on the area. We need to get together and make sure we can make our voices heard about this before it is too late. Please sign this petition and pass it on to anyone you know who will be interested. My aims in starting this petition are firstly to raise awareness of the reality of the situation and secondly to make a database of interested people so that we can keep in touch with each other about fracking developments and get together to speak out/protest if and when it becomes necessary. Please email me if you would like to get involved in this campaign.

There are at least 9 groups which use the library from tiny tots to the elderly - including knitting groups, family history group, creative writing groups, toddler groups and even wool spinning. The computers enable the unemployed without internet access at home to search for work as the job centre requires them to do. The buses from St Just to Penzance have recently been cut and the prices raised. St Just is a growing community with a new housing estate just built which will house many people who will benefit from a local library. Tourist use the library in summer for computer access and the valuable local knowledge of our librarians. Your cuts will mean the library is only open for one full day and two half days. This is planned to happen in June - just in time for the height of the tourist season!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tky42vHUHlI Just 6 months after granting a Tree Preservation Order on this London Plane Tree, Mendip has received an application to fell. Unfortunately the TPO will not save the tree from Pangmore Development's application if approved by Mendip District Council. This is one of the last trees in the town centre and certainly the last tree of note in the Kingsway precinct. It is a specimen town centre tree and plays a major contribution in the character of the Conservation Area, and its felling would be a major loss to the aesthetic quality of the town.

Carers are classed as unemployed yet they get payed less than current unemployed levels. Carers work 24/7 without recognition, Carers at a minimum, need to receive the same amount of Benefits as the unemployed and refine their roles as employed with all rights. Care payments are also taxable so they should be given the same rights as anyone that is working and the same support regardless of their ability to have another Job along with being a care giver. For many caring for someone that has a disability is a 24/7 Job with no holiday pay and no other way of gaining an income. Being a Carer receiving £61.35 a wk whilst the unemployed receive £72.50. As a Carer on £61.35 wk we have to pay our own eye tests and prescriptions, the unemployed don't!! It costs over £500 wk to look after someone in Care but home Carers receive £61.35 wk. Carers save the economy more than £120billion yr but Carers only receive £61.35 wk. Why don't you allow a Carer some Airtime? Lets also be very clear on the Carers Allowance, its a deduction of Benefits the person Being Cared for would normally receive, so in real terms I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul( no pun intended) Its a mockery of the system and abuse of situation. Thousands are giving up work to look after a loved one. We also have over 800.000 kids who receive nothing for the caring they provide whilst missing out on growing up as a child should, enjoying a childhood. Again this wont get Airtime unless we take our concerns directly to those responsible. This Government must stop paying lip service to Carers, they are a vital to the Economy. The SNP have now committed to this.

If the population increases and grows, it would be ideal to make the possible train service to those who want it back, that's if the people petition to have the old lines reopened, SELRAP have also done their part too for the Colne-Skipton rail line.

The evidence for human-induced climate change is compelling*. What we need now is action. But without the political will this won't happen; and without popular support there will be no political will. Much power and responsibility therefore rests with the media: to inform the public appropriately so that we are able to demand - and give support for - the required responses to our growing planetary predicament. While editors' acknowledgement of a range of views is to be applauded, the issue of climate change is of such critical importance that efforts must be made now to prevent those who are neither qualified nor objective from dominating and prolonging unproductive debates over its extent and significance. Instead it is time to open up important and interesting discussions about what we must now do; not just about what we can do as volunteers or at grassroots level, but about what must happen at policy level to ensure that the myriad imaginative and constructive grassroots initiatives already underway are properly supported, economically and legally; about what is required to ensure that appropriate national level initiatives are enabled and implemented; and about the options for ensuring that activities and businesses that perpetuate the damage are penalised and constrained. There is an abundance of constructive responses to climate change and ecosystem degradation, across a variety of sectors, most of which are rarely mentioned in mainstream media. Discussion of such options and their relative merits could enliven programming schedules for years to come. For example, industrial agriculture is responsible for between 14 and 24% of greenhouse gas emissions globally** (as well as for destroying vast tracts of healthy soil and contaminating fresh waterways). Yet there are other approaches to producing our food: carbon farming, eco-agriculture and agroforestry to name a few, some of which sequester carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil, as well as produce food. These approaches are supported neither by subsidies nor tax policies; while the destructive models are. Surely this merits discussion. Alternatives to carbon intensive methods exist also for energy production, for building, for water catchment management, and for transportation. Policies, legislation and economic constructs to support such alternatives are available and implemented in other countries***, yet in the UK, tax-payers' money still subsidises destructive models. Shouldn't these be the issues under debate? Shouldn't the public be informed as to the alternatives and the possibilities for where their hard-earned money is spent, and how these decisions affect their environment, their food and water, their climate, and their children's future? We believe that providing such properly informed and forward-looking coverage is an absolute imperative, and this is why we are calling on all media organisations to take their responsibilities to us all and to the planet seriously. Notes * From NASA: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position" - http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus . A list of further resources summarising the evidence can be found here: http://www.desmogblog.com/is-climate-change-real From The Guardian, 14 February 2014: "Flooding and storms in UK are clear signs of climate change, says Lord Stern" - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/flooding-storms-uk-climate-change-lord-stern?CMP=twt_gu ** As reported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): http://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/global-agriculture-emissions/ *** There are many examples. Here are a couple. Uruguay is expecting to generate 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2234025/uruguay-set-to-become-world-leader-in-wind-power In 2013, wind power alone produced more than 30% of Denmark's gross power consumption: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/12/postcard-from-the-future-122-wind-power-in-denmark For comparison: renewables contribution to UK electricity generation was 11.3% in 2012 - https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/national-renewables-statistics/ Image: Brockweir, on the Wye estuary, 2014. Courtesy: Dave Throup/Environment Agency.

There is a clear need for the Department of Energy and Climate Change to embark on a Public Information Campaign that actively seeks to: Improve public understanding of Climate Science Illustrate the implications of Climate Change Effectively communicate the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change --- The realities of climate change are clear and present. Experts in the field of climate science have published their findings time and time again, and there are very few dissenting voices against the consensus view. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, human influence on the climate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the key conclusions from an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/press_release_wg1_full_report.pdf These opening words from the IPCC press release announcing the online publication of its full report ‘Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis’, are utterly unambiguous. An international endeavour comprising the work of hundreds of climate scientists, prepared with the assistance of more than a thousand expert reviewers, and citing over 9000 publications, the report leaves no doubt as to the reality of climate change. The scientific consensus is not fully reflected in the wider population, however. A recent report from the UK Energy Research Centre suggests that public scepticism towards climate change has actually risen in recent years and that people are now less concerned about its potential impact than previously (http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=3514 - pdf download - survey conducted March 2013). The flooding crisis of the last few weeks has re-ignited a national debate on climate change, centred around the question of whether the spate of storms that contributed heavily to rising floodwaters could be attributed to climate change. But it has been clear that there is a large degree of misunderstanding on the topic, as well as a certain amount of misrepresentation. Some of the views on display in the national media are not just a rejection that the extensive flooding may have been caused by climate change, but are rejections of the very idea of climate change as a whole. Such sentiments are rare, but come from highly prominent political individuals. Of most concern is that they are people who are not experts in the field, but have still been given equal weight to their arguments. The issue of climate change is not one of political opinion, but of scientific fact. The Department of Energy and Climate Change should begin a program of public information releases that relay the message that climate scientists and many non-governmental organisations have been imparting for a number of years. We have seen instances of public information campaigns regarding health, safety, and security concerns in a wide range of areas. It is high-time that climate change was given the attention it requires.