On the 11th July, the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, granted Gallagher Group planning permission to extend their Hermitage Quarry into Oaken Wood, a wildlife-rich area of Ancient Woodland near Maidstone in Kent. This is the first time that the legal protection of an Ancient Woodland site has been set aside in favour of economic growth. If this precedent is set, all of our cherished local wildlife sites are at risk, all on the say-so of one man. Nowhere is safe. Eric Pickles will go down in history as the Minister who removed protection from Ancient Woodland across the UK, the beginning of the end of our "green and pleasant land". With less than two years to the next election this government is very sensitive to public opinion. The plans to sell off our forests were stopped in their tracks when they realised the extent of the groundswell of opposition from the shires and beyond to the idea. Oaken Wood represents a line in the sand. We have less than 2% of our Ancient Woodland cover left. If we cannot prevent the destruction of one much-loved local woodland, an irreplaceable ecosystem home to European protected species such as dormice, reptiles and bats, we accept that economic growth is more important than any legal protection for the countryside,and pave the way for uncontrolled development with no regard to the damage to our environment.

People who reach age 60 and are unemployed have very little chance of finding employment. Technology alone will account for too many redundancies. Youth unemployment is at an all time high and in many cases earlier retirement will free up jobs for them. Many of the younger generation need to be given a chance to work and raising the retirement age is only making things worse for them. To expect people to work longer and longer before they retire is based on the premise that people are living longer. Yet that does not apply to every segment of society; it is just an average. No government should be basing the age of retirement on average life expectancy. These figures are warped! Instead, they need to look at the areas of UK with lower life expectancy and base the age of retirement on that figure, minus at least five years for men and women. Otherwise the wealthy, who have longer life expectancies overall, are the only ones who will get to enjoy their retirement. The people who have slogged their whole lives MAY live to their age of retirement, but what will their quality of life be? So many are already ill when they retire. This is totally wrong and needs to be addressed by MPs. An optional retirement age of 60 takes account of those differences and would not stop those in good health continuing to work should they wish to. It would be a much fairer system all round if people were given that choice. As a bonus, this would reduce the costs of operating huge bureaucracies such as The Department for Work and Pensions, who at present continue to push older people into employment that is just not there, (and please, lets be honest for once, it really isn't), often including those who are sick and disabled. People having to sign on in their 60s is ridiculous. They deserve more dignity than that. This money would be better spent on helping younger people into work and the older people to retire. Many have worked all their lives since they were 15 and I don't feel you took any of this into account when you changed the retirement age drastically for women born in the 1950s, . Some have not been able to work all the time, due to ill-health or raising families, but this doesn't matter. We are a welfare state and all should be treated equally. Not only will they work longer than the next generation, who's education tends to continue for longer, but they're supposed to continue working for 51 years in all! It's ludicrous! No-one should be forced to work that long. We shouldn't be treated like "stock", we should be treated like people, which is what we are. Lowering the retirement age would enable younger people to pay into the system and their own pensions, which in turn helps the economy. Letting the young stagnate while bullying the old, the sick, the disabled people into work which they have little chance of obtaining, is not to anyone's benefit! It was right that the EU wanted us to equalize ages of retirement for men and women. In this regard, men had been discriminated against for too long. It was wrong, however, to make women born in the 1950s to bear the brunt of those changes. The age for men to retire should have been reduced to 60. This would have been a much more equitable way to resolve the discrimination. Many people die in their 60s and earlier, in spite of statistics, and the way things stand now, some people will be forced to work until they die, without a chance to retire! I personally have lost two good friends to illness when they were only in their early 50s. Another friend had a stroke at 39. My uncle died aged 36 of a heart attack. I could go on. These are real people, not statistics. People who retire at 60 still have much to give to society. Allow them the opportunity to enjoy their retirement on a state pension and free them up to contribute to society in ways that differ from paid work. At the same time, give the youngsters a chance to participate fully in society. Many have never had that chance! Reducing the optional retirement age to 60, while allowing people to work longer should they wish to, is a win win situation for everybody. Not everything is about money, though it seems to have become that way in the UK. Besides, importantly, people have paid for their pensions. They are not a benefit. They are a right!

Mitcham Lane is an 'A' road, and as such is an important route for people moving both within, and passing through the area. The width of the road, not including the pavement, is at least 10.5m for a significant stretch passing through Wandsworth (from the roundabout with Southcroft Road to the junction with Eardley Road). Using this road, on foot, or by bicycle is not straightforward. We believe space exists for high quality segregated cycle routes to be placed on the road ensuring that people of whatever age or ability can choose to cycle locally. These tracks could be on each side of the road or a two-way cycle track could be provided on one side. This narrowing of the carriageway should result in lower speeds by motorists, and make it easier for pedestrians and the less able to cross the road. With 50% of car trips in London being two miles or less, many of those journeys could be cycled if the streets were designed in a more inviting manner. Mitcham Lane frequently has cars parked with 'for sale' signs, and cars are also often parked illegally too close to side junctions restricting clear and safe views of the road for all users. The local parade of shops also suffers from the dominance of motor traffic that the current street design facilitates. The changes we are asking for would help breathe more life into the area, and boost the local economy. We need to show significant local support for this so that TfL listen to us and can ensure the next update / resurfacing includes installing proper cycle tracks. This post from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain illustrates how using existing legislation, officers can install high quality cycle tracks: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/blog/2013/07/26/a-view-from-the-drawing-board-cycle-track-priority-across-side-roads This petition is also supported by the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign (part of London Cycling Campaign - http://www.wandsworthcyclists.org.uk)

Smithfield General Market is under threat. A major London landmark, the buildings are part of one of the greatest market parades in Europe built by Sir Horace Jones, the architect of Tower Bridge. Proposals from a group of investors and developers have been approved by the City of London Corporation. These involve major demolition of the buildings only leaving 3 stretches of street frontages standing. The plans will see the interiors, including the great market halls, completely demolished to make way for offices that will rise up above the remaining facades. There are already too many empty office buildings in London - there is no need to build more. Moreover, the City has hundreds of thousands of square metres already in the pipeline not far from Smithfield. These proposals will cause substantial harm to the conservation area and will break up a complete group of protected historic market buildings. These buildings have been standing empty for too long. We are backing a fully-funded, viable, conservation-led alternative that would preserve the General Market and Fish Market in their entirety and allow them to open within months as a food market and a place for cafes, retail, bars and restaurants. The City of London Corporation was advised to put the site on the open market following a public inquiry five years ago, to allow a conservation-led scheme to come forward. The City, who own the freehold, never did this. We are asking the Secretary of State and his Planning Minister to call the application in for a full public inquiry, to ensure that this important site is saved for the nation. The campaign already has the support of all the National Amenity Societies, many local businesses and residents, and notable names such as Michelin-starred chef Fergus Henderson, author and playwright Alan Bennett, and MP Glenda Jackson. “If you go to St Bartholomew’s and then walk through Smithfield, it is like walking from one cathedral to another. You wouldn’t pull down St Bartholomew’s, nor should you pull down Smithfield. Smithfield was the scene of many martyrdoms – this would be another.” Alan Bennett “You can’t stop change but you should be able to recognize when something is extraordinary which Smithfield General Market is! This is the time to say no.” Fergus Henderson For more information please see SAVE's website: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/news/campaigns.php Link to the most recent press article, in the Financial Times, August 2nd. ‘Smithfield: Alternative option for Reviving historic London Market.’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1510ebfa-f83f-11e2-b4c4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bBXyYs6d

High Wycombe is a large town and the nearest A&E units are at Wexham (in Berkshire) and Stoke Mandeville Hospital - both of which are approx an hours drive away from Wycombe centre. John Radcliffe is the other nearby Hospital in Oxfordshire. Many people since they closed down the unit have suffered in pain and sadly there have been an increase in deaths as brought up in the recent condemning Keogh report. Please now listen to the people of Wycombe and the surrounding areas and bring this back. It doesn’t matter if you pay private medical insurance; everyone no matter who you are may need to use the A&E or their family and friends.

Appealing the decision would waste still more taxpayer cash which should be spent on making the NHS better. It would cause continued damaging uncertainty and anxiety for NHS staff and local people. The decision to close vital Lewisham services was completely flawed and has now been found unlawful. The government has already spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a misguided attempt to close Lewisham hospital services. It should stop now, not throw good money after bad. If the High Court judgement were to be overturned, no hospital anywhere in the country would be safe from closure. See www.savelewishamhospital.com/ and www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs for more information.

Thurrock is the most polluted area in the whole of UK but the Government have put forward proposals for a third Thames crossing between Essex and Kent which could make local people's lives a misery. Option C for the crossing would devastate over 100 acres of Green Belt as well as destroying a Fen, villages and a wildlife Hospital. Thousands of people will be given no choice but to sell their homes to the government and relocate. There is very little pristine land left in this part of the country. The new Thames crossing is being proposed on the grounds of reducing delays and congestion. Yet evidence from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England shows that new routes actually increase congestion and road usage rather than reduce it. And with toll gates due to be removed on the existing crossing and bridge from 2014 the problem could be eased without the need to build another. Kent and Essex councils have already backed route C and whilst the department for transport says that it is considering all options there are indications that the decision has already made. Not only this, but at £5 billion Option C is more than double the cost of other routes at a time when budgets are stretched. Please sign the petition and help us stop these plans.

Otter Rotters provides supported volunteer, training and job opportunities for learning disabled and disadvantaged people. Community Composting Groups used to operate under an exemption. The exemption ceiling for the new permit regime has been set too low and community groups have been forced to stop their operations whilst calling for a review. Environment Agency stated in April 2012 “ we recognised that a significant number of composting operations were likely to be disproportionately affected by the changes. Such operations would move from exempt status to full bespoke permitting as they could not take advantage of our light-touch standard rules approach” and bespoke fees were reduced but not to a level that would enable the community schemes to be able to afford the application process. Community Composting is about local communities composting their green waste locally. The introduction of this permit regime has meant that green waste is now being transported out of area and a disposal fee having to be paid to commerical operators. It will reverse the trend of green waste being diverted from landfill sites if Otter Rotters is forced to give up their composting site resulting in job and training opportunity losses for its learning disabled team.

Since the unfortunate and sad end of GuilFest last year, organisers have been inundated with requests and offers of support in helping to reinstate the festival. Organisers have been busy and in continuing discussions with each other throughout this year looking at as to how and whether the festival could reinstate itself again next year (2014) . Organisers want to bring back the experience that has been appreciated locally by both young and old for 21 years. The festival provides an important role in the community and it is invaluable with regard to businesses and employment, not to mention local artists and performers. It is felt that 21 years of hard work in building this yearly family focussed independent event, which has seen a vast array of the world’s finest musicians and performers visit Guildford, cannot just be lost. Please show your support in bringing back the local treasure that is GuilFest by signing this petition.

Even the analysis used by the Council to justify the change suggests that cycling speeds will only be reduced by 1 or 2 mph. In the space of a couple of hours, over 120 users of Wandsworth Common signed a petition to oppose the change. The Council chose to ignore them, to ignore their own policy, to ignore the needs of disabled people and ignore common sense. The Council used money from Transport for London to put the lines in. They now plan to use more money from TfL to take them out! Doing nothing would be infinitely preferable to this crazy scheme. By spending a fraction of £85,000 on simply improving the existing lanes and signage, the safety of all users could be improved. (NB funding amount was originally stated in this petition to be £82K).

Since Putin's re-election in May the LGBT have suffered great injustices including banning the wider world Community from adopting, attacks on Community members at Pride marches,The law also includes a provision that allows the Russian government to arrest foreign tourists for up to 14 days for supporting LGBT equality. It is now illegal for LGBT people to publicly display affection, to tweet positive messages about LGBT people and their relationships, to broadcast positive news stories about LGBT people or to wear or display a rainbow flag or any other symbol of LGBT equality. Earlier in June, Mr. Putin signed yet another antigay bill, classifying “homosexual propaganda” as pornography. The law is broad and vague, so that any teacher who tells students that homosexuality is not evil, any parents who tell their child that homosexuality is normal, or anyone who makes pro-gay statements deemed accessible to someone underage is now subject to arrest and fines. Even a judge, lawyer or lawmaker cannot publicly argue for tolerance without the threat of punishment.

As you may be aware, there are already numerous methods of blocking access to pornography where parents wish to do so. A block at the ISP level takes what is and is not blocked out of the control of parents, with potentially dangerous results. Video chat sites aimed at teenagers and certain social media sites are (as identified by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, CEOP) some of the places paedophiles go to prey on children, but as these are not 'adult' in nature they will most likely not come under the block. Parents being told their internet connection is being filtered for adult content to protect their children will therefore believe their children are 'safe' when they are in fact being left exposed to serious risks. The emphasis should be on educating parents about dangers like these, helping them to set up their own restrictions so their children are protected, and highlighting the fact that no blocking software or filters are a substitute for parental supervision. Restricting access to information based on blacklists and filtering at the ISP level represents a severe curtailment of civil liberties. Such practices are typically employed by governments wishing to restrict access to information and ideas they find threatening or undesirable (the aforementioned People's Republic of China being a good example). Prime Minister Cameron took the opportunity to also state that certain 'extreme' fantasy material (involving no illegal acts) would now be made illegal in all of the UK, signalling his intent to restrict access to material that is currently legal. Sure enough, one week later it was revealed that the ISP filtering may cover far more than just pornography; categories of materials that may be blocked include violent material, extremist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, and even web forums and so-called "esoteric material" (see http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall). I would urge you to carefully consider these points when and if these issues are debated in the house. The CEOP previously identified other priorities for protecting children from abuse such as finding ways to monitor hidden and encrypted networks, and greater inter-country law enforcement cooperation. I believe these approaches should be selected in preference to the measures mentioned by the Prime Minister, measures that will ultimately fail to catch the most serious perpetrators and are themselves open to serious abuse.