TWO DIRECTORS ARE LORDS AND THIS, I BELIEVE, IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE JUST ISN'T THE INFRASTRUCTURE, LET ALONE THE WATER SUPPLY TO DEAL WITH THIS MASSIVE INVASION OF OVER 30,000 PEOPLE. Vast areas of countryside where many Red Listed and Schedule 1 Protected birds live, as well as other rare species of wildlife including badgers will be concreted over, ruining the countryside forever. HS2 WILL BE BUILT TO FERRY PEOPLE FROM THE NORTH TO LONDON. THEY CAN BUILD THEIR SPRAWL NEAR ALREADY DEVELOPED TOWNS WHERE HOUSES ARE NEEDED AND BUSINESSES ARE NEEDED UP NORTH. - OR ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEPS. https://www.mayfieldtowns.co.uk/ I believe that Lord Borwick and Lord Mathew Taylor (housing ‘advisor’ to the current Conservative government) are potentially breaching a ‘conflict of interest’. Large donations were made to the Conservative party. Peter Freeman is a director of Mayfields - founder Argent Plc. Donations made to Conservative party from M FREEMAN (over £500,000) of Argent plc - Co founder of Argent - Peter Freeman who is now a director of Mayfields. Mr Freeman founded the property group Argent in 1981. He is Founder, Chairman, and Non-Executive Director of Argent Group Plc. Lord Borwick group of companies: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/900170909 http://companycheck.co.uk/director/900170909/GEOFFREY-ROBERT-JAMES-BORWICK/directors-shareholders ENSCO 946 LIMITED - Lord Borwick Director - Federated Investments LLP Lee Newlyn; Lord Matthew Taylor, Lord Jamie Borwick; Jacqueline Craymer - Mayfield, directors will be gaining, prospering and benefiting financially from this vast concrete sprawl.

In a location such as a Wetherby it is of paramount importance that a fire appliance is available at all possible times within the normal operating parameters of a Fire Brigade. This is due to the remoteness of the next nearest fire appliances, some 12-15 minutes away. It is also an abuse of the tax payers money and resources and falls short of the service standards paid for and expected by the public and businesses in the Wetherby area. Not so long ago, the then District Manager, Mick Smith, allowed a crew from Wetherby to be stood down from operational duties for over 4 hours and to travel over 22 miles out of station area. During this time the crew dismantled a boxing ring at Fire Service HQ and then traveled to the Batley frontier club to reassemble it. The reason for the absence input on official documentation was "training at FSHQ for approx. 1'5 hours" This meant that, due to this falsehood, no appliance was sent to standby at Wetherby by control staff and this left the area vulnerable in the case of a fire or road traffic collision. An investigation was carried out (by the peers and colleagues!) of those responsible and no-one was found to be accountable. It was proved that the entry made in the official log was a lie to cover up the actual whereabouts of the appliance and crew. The stated reply was "We can learn lessons from this" Imagine if this had been an ambulance and crew or a police van been allowed to be used in this same way. After the investigation and result, Councillor Wilkinson was approached and when asked to comment on the incident of the inappropriate use of the appliance and crew he said that he trusted the judgement of the officers concerned as "he has known them personally for some years" ACO Barnes has also refused to hold anyone accountable and has refused to have an investigation. It was also stated that Wetherby is a "low risk area" to justify the absence. Charity is, by definition, the giving of time or money freely to aid an organisation. It is not the unilateral commandeering of an essential on duty emergency service paid by the tax payers . If you think this incident was wrong and should not be allowed to happen again then please sign this petition. I am a retired fire officer and know the importance of an early attendance in order to save lives. If this incident goes unpunished or not demonstrated against then Wetherby might lose it's fire engine altogether! Please support. Thank you in anticipation.

Mental health deserves equality with physical health. Service user involvement in the form of tokenism is unacceptable but none at all is shameful in 2014. Health And Social Care Act 2001 ''Section 11: Public involvement and consultation. 66. Section 11 confers on each Health Authority, Primary Care Trust and NHS trust a new statutory duty to make arrangements with the aim of involving patients and the public in the planning and decision making processes of that body, in so far as they affect the operation of the health services for which the body is responsible. In relation to Health Authorities, this would cover both the hospital and community health services for which they are responsible and the family health services provided by practitioners in their area'' Mental health must have parity with physical health services and the same legal entitlement to user involvement .Cornwall's complete absence of a meaningful independent voice for service users and carers is putting lives at risk, causing a huge rise in self harm and needless loss of lives.

Some of these bird numbers are already in decline and we shouldn't be worsening their situation. This is another example of humans thinking they can do what they want to the natural world for their own interests. We can't just decide to upset nature for some people's narrow-minded opinions and this body that advises the government is not one that has nature's interests at heart. Read here for more details. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/18/bird-killing-call-robin-starling-mallard-splits-conservationists This gives you a clearer insight as to what it's really about. http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/heres-the-real-reason-the-tories-are-allowing-the-destruction-of-robin-eggs-and-nests/

Britain's children should not be protected for profit. Yet, under new legislation proposed by Michael Gove's Department for Education, private companies could have the chance to decide whether children stay in their family homes or are put into the care system. Six weeks is too short a time for "consultation", and experts in the field have voiced concern over the proposals, as well as the lack of in-depth research. It's time to stand beside the 37 social services experts who have publicly condemned the plans for subjecting much-needed services to the "fickleness and failings" of private companies like Serco, G4S, and ATOS. In the past two years, we have seen the catastrophic impact of privatising public services. The private firm, ATOS, should have taught us a lesson through their failed Work Capability Assessments, which found millions of sick people "fit for work". Many died without benefits, and the government lost millions of pounds from appeals made by wrongly assessed claimants. Protecting young people is too important a service to hand over to the highest bidder. Tell the Department of Education that we don't want to see the lives of vulnerable children in the hands of target-chasing private companies.

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