Banks and financial institutions can make millions from risky speculations. However, when these go wrong, as happened in 2008, billions of pounds of public money were used to bail out the banks and save them from the consequences of their risk taking. Since the 2008 crash the total paid in bonuses will this year pass through the £80bn barrier – some three and a half times the amount banks have paid in Corporation tax and the bank levy – and equates to around £1,250 for every man, woman and child in the Britain. This Tax is not intended to be punitive: nicknamed the "Robin Hood Tax" it is, like the folk hero, intended to redistribute wealth and help those in difficulty. If we, the public and the tax payers, must share the financial risks of banks' trading then it seems simply fair that, at other times, we should also receive some benefit. This money can be distributed and spent to the benefit of all - in the UK, abroad and for the environment.

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.

We run the risk that young people in particular will be so protected from risk that they don't grow up having "tested the boundaries". Since 1985 the Marlborough Brandt Group, a small charity in Marlborough Wiltshire, has sent over 1000 young people from our secondary schools to live with families and work in our link community of Gunjur in The Gambia, West Africa alongside young Gambians. All of these young people have benefited from this experience in terms of their personal and professional development and their understanding of the world beyond their community. Health and safety now dictates that a) we spend large sums of our charitable money for insurance cover b) large amounts of time conducting a risk analysis, which is almost meaningless in a rural African context and c) we consider stopping the programme and thus depriving young people of an extraordinary life-changing experience. This is a national issue and must be debated or our young in UK will be deprived a proper, well-rounded education.

Carers are being ignored and Staffs County Council don't seem to care about our children or us! We are all getting older, we no longer get any allowances for having our children and soon we will have them 24/7 if the council get their way! How is this fair: We had a consultation or was it? When 69% voted for the Day Services to remain OPEN. 21% said they were open to change & 10% didnt vote. Surely they should have gone with the majority But no they didn't They have gone for complete closure! And our poor kids will be lost and no one seems to care. But I DO, so please sign this for every one with a Special Needs child (adult) Since October last year we have all been in meetings and consultations with Staffordshire County Council concerning Daybreak in Tamworth closing! We were all offered options 4 in all. The first was to leave Daybreak as it was, with the wonderful staff members helping our children get the very best out of life, meeting there friends every day, having days out and getting the right stability that they need on a daily basis. Everyone that I know went for and wants option ONE. Option three was always mentioned at our meetings, but no one wanted that, we want our children to see there friends everyday, that's what keeps them going, they don't like change and when they get it they get unhappy and when they get unhappy they take it out on there nearest and dearest US! None of us (parents/carers) are getting any younger, in fact we are all a lot older, so we need to know our children are safe everyday. So whats going on? With this proposed option three, our poor children will never again get to meet up with friends on a day to day basis, never again be picked up by minibuses (with helpful drivers and assistants) each day (so that we know they are safe and in capable hands), never again do the things they all love doing at the moment, never again have a laugh and a joke with a member of staff or make each other drinks! No, they will be pushed from pillar to post, be taken by strangers on public transport to venues they are unfamiliar with, meet people they don't know, not see the friendly faces of the staff that they have known for so many years. Our children are vulnerable! And the council expects them to be happy, I don't think so! I know for a fact my daughter will not be happy in any way if she has to leave Daybreak. Its like her second home and she feels safe there. Roaming the streets with someone she doesn't really know, isn't the way forward for her (or any of our children) and supposing she doesn't like the person shes been allocated What happens then? Will it be a case of put up with it or lose it? Know one knows or wants to know. But to top the lot we have had no evidence that this option three would ever work with our vulnerable children. They have no evidence to support any of the services that they have to offer, What are these services? Where are these services? How much will these services cost our children? How will they get to the services? We have never seen any paperwork to prove to us that there are other routes to take, but even if there were we DON'T want to put our children in that position in the first place. We all want Daybreak to stay OPEN and continue as it is. The council says it needs to make cuts, but I as a lot of others, feel that they could make cuts by not holding free expensive firework displays/ music shows etc. Surely the day to day lives of our vulnerable Learning Disabilities children/ (to us they are children) adults, is more important, than cuts isn't it? It seems not to be the case!

In November 2013, a Prison Service instruction removed metal stringed electric and acoustic guitars from the list of permitted prisoner possessions. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-30-2013.doc At the same time, access to arts materials for purchase by prisoners has become more restricted by the limited items available through approved suppliers. And when an order is placed, the delay in receiving materials is often protracted. One of the effects of linking prison education funding to vocational targets is the loss of much of the non-accredited arts programme; dramatic arts have particularly suffered. Prison staff are often not sensitive to the value of creative art work to prisoners and have removed art and writing from the possession of prisoners without explanation. These are not isolated events but are indicative of the need for the Ministry of Justice to reconsider the value of the arts in prison. Prisoners are full of creativity. You only need to look at the success of the Koestler awards to see that. But many prisoners actually rely on their creative outlets just to cope with life. There are many recent studies which have shown how participation in the arts can be a life-changing experience for prisoners. Not only do the arts support prisoner welfare but they can also provide a pathway to change, enabling growth of self-esteem and helping to combat depression. In this respect, the arts should be seen as a cornerstone of the rehabilitation process. The people who are most affected by these changes have no voice. Prisoners are unable to sign this petition or campaign for change. But you can. Please do. You can make a real difference to their lives. "I've had a guitar in my cell ever since my first days in custody and it really helps me cope with my sentence. It's a really creative and educational outlet. I'm still improving and I've even written my own compositions. I don't know what I'll do when they take it off me. It's going to leave me feeling very down. There are a lot of poor copers in prison. What are we supposed to do?” Nathan, HMP Wakefield Further discussion of these issues by a serving prisoner: http://adammac.co.uk/2014/02/20/arts-under-attack/

The effect of the floods and storms of recent days on Spelthorne have proven to those who live and work here the very real need for our existing fire and rescue services to be maintained. The firefighters in both Staines and Sunbury have been working flat out to provide essential rescue services, as have those from the surrounding boroughs.

Many people use this service to commute to work, one bus an hour is completely impractical, especially during rush hour. I use this service regularly and on the daily commute I frequently see a gentleman with a guide dog, a lady using a walking stick and a young mother with two children, one with a disability, who have no option but to use the bus to get to town. I would urge everyone effected by the changes to the bus service in Basingstoke to join this campaign.

The recent flooding in Southern England and Wales has highlighted the need for a more holistic approach to flood management, rather than blocking with sandbags and concrete. Reintroducing managed ditches to control standing water that work alongside hedgerows will also prevent soil erosion. Not only will it create valuable habitats for the dwindling song bird population, it would help increase biodiversity as a whole, and create a more permanent source of sustainable employment through the reintroduction of traditional rural crafts.

studies show that cannabis has many medicinal properties ranging from being a pain killer to helping people who are living with cancer. it has helped people who were terminal to go into remission in one day. it will also bring around £7 billion into England which will help our economy like it has in places like Africa and India. It will also bring many jobs into play which will help people who are jobless to start earning money to look after their family again. Cannabis has been smoked for over 4000 years, "it is not a drug, it is a natural plant with healing properties.

Engagement with politics happens for the vast majority of people through radio and television, particularly on popular programs such as Question Time. The lack of diversity amongst MP's is a problem for the UK. The lack of diversity in our political programming is a linked problem. Politics should not be the sole domain of well educated, white men. Nor should political commentary, debate and discussion.