For a Government that is committed to ‘digital by default’ their systems for claiming disability benefit are the equivalent of sending a carrier pigeon. If you want to claim Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance online you will need to take a step back to the 1990s and hunt through second hand shops for an old PC that you can power up. Don’t even think about using a smartphone or a Mac. The most recent Microsoft browser the system supports is Internet Explorer 6 which is so out of date that technology geeks have held parties to celebrate it no longer being used http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16408850. One political blogger was so amazed at the situation he thought that this was an April fools joke. http://sampb.co.uk/politics/dla-online-outdated/ Whilst a new system is being phased in for those aged 16-64 between now and 2017, for everyone else they will have to find one of the 2% of computers nationwide that still run on this out of date technology. This situation is unacceptable and must be tackled immediately. Just t in case you are into retro IT here is the link to the online claim page http://www.dwp.gov.uk/eservice/ And these are the browsers you can use! Microsoft Windows 98, ME, 2000, or XP; Internet Explorer versions 5.0.1, 5.5 and 6.0; Netscape 7.2; Firefox 1.0.3; Mozilla 1.7.7'

Affected borrowers will pay substantially more than they believed they would be paying. If one lender is allowed to get away with changing mortgage terms in this way what's to stop other mortgage lenders copying them? You may not be affected by this change but stopping Bank of Ireland might prevent your mortgage lender imposing unfair terms on your mortgage in the future. No borrower with a tracker rate mortgage can afford to allow Bank of Ireland to get away with this.

The current wording of the proposal does not recognise that sustainable development includes economic considerations. The proposals could give unintended additional emphasis on one of the three aspects of sustainable development, all of which must be considered when taking decisions on future development. In Clause 6 the proposed requirement for assessing economic advantages and disadvantages of developments would cause great difficulty in practical delivery. It would also put at risk 40 years of case law developed under the existing system and could lead to major delays in planning decisions.

The South Downs National Park is in under threat from a massive development by Durand Academy. Durand Academy’s proposed new school for 600 teenagers and 86 staff is the size of three superstores with almost the same population as the nearest villages. Its scale is totally inappropriate for such an important area of outstanding natural beauty. What’s at risk? The development will permanently damage the local environment – the night skies, tranquillity, landscape, flora and fauna - which the SDNPA has a statutory duty to preserve and protect. The development is only 60 metres from a protected Site of Special Scientific Interest. What will happen? Durand Academy’s children and teachers will be bussed in and out from London in convoys of coaches down narrow country lanes which are dangerous for such high levels of traffic. The only two approach roads are single track. The school is not accessible by public transport. All people and goods will have to access the site using their own vehicles. Who else is concerned? The Council for the Protection of Rural England and South Downs Society. The National Trust opposes the development saying that it is ‘contrary to the fundamental National Park purpose to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the area.’ The National Trust is ‘particularly concerned about the impact of an average of 40 HGV movements per day for an 86 week build period and the impact on highway safety and the amenity of the National Park.’ What about the future? Durand Academy has not demonstrated that it can afford to sustain the project and has significantly underestimated the costs involved. We do not believe the project is workable without significant additional support from taxpayers and fear that we will end up with an abandoned project in the heart of one of the most beautiful areas of Britain which may be the gateway to further development. What do we want? We fully support the proposal to give inner-city children access to the countryside and the best educational opportunities possible but not in this place, not on this scale and not in this way. The 600 teenagers will be confined to a small site with space for only one football pitch and under strict curfew in a development that will cause irreversible harm to the precious environment they are meant to be able to enjoy. The South Downs National Park needs to be protected for all Britain’s children for all generations to come. It is time to say NO. Durand Academy claims that it has support from local people. We need to demonstrate that there is strong public opposition to the proposal. We don’t have much time. Please sign this petition and circulate it to your friends. For further information please see www.woolbedingwithredford-pc.co.uk/home/st-cuthman-s-development “Costs of running ‘Eton of state sector’ hugely unrealistic – West Sussex villagers object to boarding school for inner-city pupils, saying Government has got its sums wrong.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/costs-of-running-eton-of-state-sector-hugely-unrealistic-8585245.html The Independent, 24 April 2013: “National Trust is latest to object to inner city academy’s ‘Eton of state sector’ in West Sussex countryside – Body says site is not suitable for a school with more than 600 pupils.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/national-trust-is-latest-to-object-to-inner-city-academys-eton-of-state-sector-in-west-sussex-countryside-8586432.html?origin=internalSearch The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “The inner city and the village school – Proposals to site a south London boarding school in a leafy Sussex village have divided opinion.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10010485/The-inner-city-and-the-village-school.html The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “Auditors investigate race row school – Plans for state-run boarding school at the centre of a Conservative race row face a Whitehall investigation after an intervention from a Labour MP.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10011449/Auditors-investigate-race-row-school.html The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 2013: “Boarding school row: It’s about planning, not race, local insist – Plans to open a new state boarding school for poor children from south London in a rural beauty spot are an “experiment” which will turn the pupils into “political footballs”, a local councilor has claimed.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10009729/Boarding-school-row-Its-about-planning-not-race-locals-insist.html Image of Woolbeding Common © Copyright Chris Gunns and licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence.

It is absolutely absurd that, in this day and age, the secretary for education, who has the power to make important changes, has no grasp on the education system and what teachers do. Before Mr Gove can make any more ridiculous changes to our pay, pensions and working conditions, he needs to experience exactly what it is to be a teacher.

“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat No long term human feeding studies have been done. Ever. There is Zero evidence that demonstrates GM food, or produce derived from GM fed animals is safe for humans to eat. Food Standards Authorities are ignoring their own, and independent scientific research and failing to acknowledge numerous studies which prove GM food and animal feed is definitely not ‘substantially equivalent’ and is in fact, potentially un-safe for human and animal consumption. UK and European food standards agencies are failing the public by relying on biased, short term data from the companies who manufacture GM crops & animals and stand to benefit financially and commercially from regulators turning a blind eye. Biotech-Accidents Happen We don’t want to be a GM feeding experiment especially in light of 2012 European food safety research documenting how a biotech “accident happened” After years of GM crops being on the market, a viral gene with serious potential to harm human health has been ‘discovered’ in 54 commercially available GM crops. Apparently, this was an ‘unintended accident.’ New genes and gene products, mostly from bacteria, viruses and other non-food species are being introduced. There is potential for transgenes, viruses & antibiotic resistance markers to spread out of control causing damaging & un-intended consequences to humans, animals and the environment. Health Independent scientific research has shown GM foods to cause tumour growth, damage the reproductive system & digestive tract and detrimentally affect the liver and kidneys of animals fed a GM diet. Research in 2012 demonstrated that rats fed GM maize died prematurely. No-one seems to know what damage GM foods are doing to humans, although there are unexplained increases in allergies, especially to soya, since the introduction of GM foods. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist. GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. Consumers want GM free food Consumers don't want to eat GM foods or animal products raised on GM feed. Recent FSA research show the majority of consumers don’t want to eat animal products produced with GM food. We don’t trust GM companies to be in control of our food Chemical Poisoning Most GM crops are grown to be resistant to chemicals such as glyphosate. In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Independent data shows glyphosate spraying has increased since the introduction of GM crops. Agricultural Diversity It is crucial that a diversity of crops can be grown side by side without contamination. GM crops have caused a serious emergence of “superweeds” resistant to pesticides. Farmers should be allowed to save their seed and re-plant it should they choose. The use of heritage seeds and traditional seed varieties should be able to continue. We don’t want control of the world’s food supply in the hands of a few biotech company directors. Environmental Pollution Genetic pollution contaminates, forever. Studies have shown the survival rates of Monarch butterflies and ladybirds are threatened by GM pollen and increased spraying due to genetically modified crops. Farmers who wish to grow non-GM crops have been sued by the biotech companies when GM contamination has occurred because their neighbours were growing GM crops. What’s the point? It is widely acknowledged as a myth that GM crops can help solve world hunger, even by the CEO of one of the companies who manufactures GM crops. The solutions to world hunger are complex, and political will is needed to contribute towards solutions. Farmers worldwide are rejecting GM crops. Current GMO’s have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. “If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.

In the light of the current legislation which aims to claw money back from social housing tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit if their accommodation has 'too many' bedrooms - it might be interesting to discover how many MPs have claimed for housing that they 'under-occupy', and which of these MPs are in favour of the bedroom tax.

We call on our councillors and local authorities to protect people from the frightening threat of eviction from their homes.

As you are probably aware; Navitus Bay Wind Park (1) will be located off the Dorset and Hampshire Coasts, to the west of the Isle of Wight, and also visible from Bournemouth, Poole and Swanage. I understand this development could produce the equivalent energy to power 800,000 homes and reduce carbon emissions by up to 1,125,000 tonnes per annum. This will be a tremendous contribution to our country's energy needs and carbon reductions. It will also help towards our renewable energy target of 15% which in the past few years has been behind plan and behind the progress rates of many other EU nations (2). I am very concerned however that a small group of local activists are using information that has little to no scientific backing to discredit this development and are creating fears about the impact on tourism and jobs in the area. I would urge you to balance any of their views against the report produced by The University of Edinburgh, presented to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament (3) in which there is clear consensus that there has been no measurable economic impact, either positively or negatively, of wind farms on tourism and concludes that “while some strongly held localised and anecdotal opinion exists, the Committee has seen no empirical evidence which demonstrates that the tourism industry in Scotland will be adversely affected by the deployment of renewable energy projects, particularly onshore and offshore wind” I appreciate the turbines will be visible from the coast on a clear day but believe this to be a small and perfectly acceptable compromise for the benefits delivered. Furthermore, I personally confirm that this development will not any way restrict the frequency or manner in which I enjoy the beach and coastal areas in the effected locations. 1. www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf 3. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Reports/eeR-12-07w-r.pdf

The government has just announced plans to re-privatise the East Coast mainline. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fresh-start-for-franchising Most Brits would agree that our rail service is not up to the standard we would hope and expect. Overcrowding, overpricing and delays are a regular feature of journeys. A four and a half hour long-distance train journey shouldn't be like taking the London Underground at rush hour - but too frequently it is. Almost everyone who uses the trains regularly will have their own horror story about lengthy delays, ridiculous ticket prices and dangerous overcrowding, often all in the same journey. Many of these problems are directly attributable to the bungled privatisations of the 1990s which - contrary to their justification - have led to massive increases in the public subsidy levels for railways, and have allowed operators to extract profit for shareholders in the good times, while passing the risk back to the government and taxpayer when things go bad. Two franchisees for the east coast mainline quit their franchises after massively over-bidding for government contracts between 2005-2009. The taxpayer was left to pick up the pieces, and since then, the east coast service has been run by government agency Directly Operated Railways under the East Coast brand. East Coast has been largely successful, with high levels of customer satisfaction and improving punctuality. It's also returning a profit to the government, rather than shareholders, and shows that the public sector can deliver a rail service efficiently and for the public good. The service is not perfect, but it's better than many other private operators, such as Virgin and First, who will both be seeking to take over the East Coast service. Can you stand back and let Richard Branson get even richer from your train fare while service levels worsen? East Coast doesn't need a new operator. Constant change in management is not good for our train services and not good for customers. It leads to huge legal fees, consultancy costs and human errors which end up being paid for in delays and increased ticket prices. The east coast service needs continuity, stability and the time to build on what it has already achieved. The public ownership of East Coast should serve as an example of the potential for successfully run public railways. Other franchises for the UK's rail services are also due to be renewed under the government's current plans, but as they come to the end of their current terms, the government should bring other services back into public operatorship following the East Coast model.

Portrush is a fantastic place to live and visit due to its natural beauty including its beaches, This beach has been enjoyed by dogs and their owners for as long as I can remember over 30 years and 30 years before that and that again I have no doubt. To enforce this ban would surely stop people from visiting the area, how can that be a good thing when so much money has been spent in the town in recent years.

For two and a half years we have been trying to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of our son, Andrew, in France in September 2010. Throughout the process of organising a post mortem, trying to work with the French authorities to understand what happened, and trying to work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office we have been faced with many struggles and barriers in gaining access to all the answers we, as a family, need about Andrew’s death. We are currently at the third stage of appeal, desperate to understand the circumstances of our son’s death, but the Foreign Office is refusing to release this information as they claim it could damage relations between France and the UK. Andrew was living in France with his French girlfriend. He was heavily medicated without choice, for a degree of paranoid schizophrenia. He wanted to return home to the UK but his partner prevented him from doing this. The day before he was found dead he told his partner that he wanted to return to the UK. Even in the weeks before he died he had spoken to family members about returning home. Andrew could talk to anyone, he saw everyone as a friend. In the UK he always enjoyed people’s company and this was denied to him in France. From the age of 12 he played chess and before and after he studied Maths at Leeds University he played at County level. He worked at PGL activity centres and loved his guitar. His company will always be missed. As a family we not only feel we have a right to this information, but that any family in the future who may go through similar circumstances in finding out about a loved one’s death in the UK or abroad should have access to all information in the case. The Foreign Office should only be able to withhold information if it’s in the interest of national security, not because they want to prevent embarrassment as seems to be the case in our terrible situation, a situation many families find themselves in. We therefore ask William Hague to please appeal to the Information Commissioners Office to rule in our favour and finally release to us all the details of Andrew’s death. We want him to stop allowing the Foreign Commonwealth Office to use the broad language in Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act to refuse to release information to grieving families who need to understand the details of their loved ones death. The UK government’s need to save face should not be put above its citizen’s need for answers during such a traumatic time.