The reason removing the three feathers is important is because it's traced back to Edward the Black Prince; oldest son and heir to Edward III of England and therefore no connection to the native land. Having the feathers is a statement of English oppression and ownership - I find it offensive that it's being used instead of daffodils, leeks, the Red dragon or the Saint David's cross. Y rheswm mae'n bwysig cael gwared o'r tair pluen yw oherwydd ei fod yn olrhain yn ôl i Edward y Tywysog Du ; mab hynaf ac aer i Edward y trydydd o Loegr ac felly tydi o ddim yn cysylltu efo'r wlad enedigol . Mae cael y tair pluen yn ddatganiad o ormes a pherchnogaeth Saeson - Dwi'n gweld hi'n sarhaus i ei ddefnyddio yn lle gennin Pedr, cennin, y ddraig Goch neu y groes Dewi Sant .

Both my sons went to Castle Nursery School a few years ago and I can't tell you how amazing this nursery is, they gave my boys the very best start to their school lives and Ofsted rate them as 'outstanding' too. Our children deserve the best as they only get one chance. Every parent should have the choice to send their children to and outstanding provider if they wish. But not only this Castle Nursery is also in the Arboretum Ward which is the most disadvantaged area in Derby and currently does not have enough childcare places for the children living in the ward. Derby City Council should be making residents aware that they can access this oustanding nursery not taking it away just because families don't know about the nursery or don't know they are entitled to 15hrs free childcare. Please help me make Derby City Council accountable for their decisions and make it known that we are not going to let them take away yet another invaluable provision just because they have mismanaged their budget. Thank you

It is important to remove the profit motive from all sexual practices so that relationships between people become loving, fun and connecting unions free from any monetary value. Lets end the commoditisation of women and sexual practices in our culture so that we may evolve as a species.Tacit or active acceptance in our culture denigrates all human beings and we can do better than that. We must strive for better. I wrote to my local MP Theresa May last May about this, chased her secretary and have heard nothing. Traditional political avenues therefore may not be the initial way forward and only a change to the law will stop this latest and fast growing addiction from become incorporated into British culture the way that drinking has become the national sport. I would postulate that the stakes are much higher in this case because everyone suffers, men, women, families, communities and society. Looking back 200 years from now what sort of cultural legacy do we want to pass on? It is the thin end of the wedge for all related sex work and has surreptitiously become part of the fabric. Its insidious nature belies a much bigger problem. Most recently I had the charge of being 'old-fashioned' levelled at me when I suggested that these places were not a suitable or harmless way for young men having a little fun on a Friday or attending a stag bash. If by trying to have a better sense of decorum I start using my mothers favourite put down (a word that has seemingly disappeared from our vernacular) vulgar; plus foster a new wave of respect between the sexes then old-fashioned is a lovely compliment and a banner I will proudly wear.

Local community supporters are strongly united in confirming that this is the only local facility providing affordable equestrian services to the community at large, who otherwise would not be able to enjoy and participate in such activities. West London Stables has been in operation for almost 20 years and during this time has provided affordable and subsidised riding and equine therapy for residents of inner city London, including disadvantaged children, young carers, disabled children and adults, individuals undergoing rehabilitation for addiction and other people that would not normally be able to experience the pleasure of being around horses. Many of those riding at West London Stables can share heart-wrenching stories about how this facility has helped them in their everyday lives, some even say it has saved them – we now need to save West London Stables so that it can continue to support the community in its own unique way. West London Stables also greatly desires to revamp its current facilities to provide an even better service offering. To do so, it needs to raise funds and its hands are somewhat tied due to the lease extension only being granted until July this year. A 2,000 strong petition was launched last year in a bid to prevent closure sending a clear message to the Westway Trust leadership that there is both a requirement in the local community for equestrian services and that there is also support and desire for the current operator to continue to provide such services. The Trust have still not got the message, its time for them to pay attention and give the community what it wants and more importantly, what it needs.

We undesigned Angelus Sumesar-Rai, Prosper Rich, John Xuereb at 62 Bruce Rd E3 3HL and John Hayes at 34 Mount Terrace E1 2BB ask Tower Hamlets Mayor and cabinet members for TUSH Housing Co-operative house sharing to continue as we are family like community. As TUSH housing co-operative for 35 years with our own hands we have made empty derelict houses into our homes. 3 long-standing community members together with our pets are threatened with eviction by Tower-Hamlets council wanting to destroy our family like way of living. We who at present share 62 Bruce Rd E3 3HL are: 82 years old Trinidad Indian gentleman Mr Angelus Sumesar-Rai for 30 years a part of Bruce Rd co-operative family and one of the founding fathers and to this day performer at Notting Hill Carnival. Mr Sumesar-Rai shares house with 2 approaching 60 years of British citizens Mr Xuereb and Mr Rich. Together Mr Xuereb and Mr Rich spent 1000's of hours voluntary labour on co-op houses restoration, gardens cultivation, and as pets lovers fostering local wildlife. Mr John Xuereb as his parents is himself born and bred in East London, working class, driver, carpenter. Mr Prosper Rich home at 66 Bruce Rd had a fire 5 years ago. Tower Hamlets council delayed fire repairs for 4 years and kept the property empty for 5 years just to prevent Mr Rich and other residents to return to their home. We current TUSH housing co-op members request the Mayor and the cabinet of Tower Hamlets council that we are allowed to continue our family like communal living by staying where we are as TUSH housing co-operative. It makes sense for us to stay together without any cost to the council rather than to break our community down into separate flats with bathrooms, toilets and living rooms. We realise that 82 year old Mr Sumesar-Rai greatly values his independence and if he needs support he trusts us to help him as we know him for so long. Please agree for TUSH co-operative house sharing to continue as we are family like community. Signed: Angelus Sumesar-Rai, Prosper Rich, John Xuereb, John Hayes. 17-03-2015

The financial success of such an endeavour depends on delivering a quality design that can attract users and provide real, long-term benefits to the city. To eat away at the key features in order to preserve a budget is a false economy which will result in a cheap-looking, lacklustre development that will absolutely NOT befit a much-loved and historically significant structure, and would offer little to attract tenants or visitors. The proposals include a creative quarter for artists, and refreshment and leisure facilities for visitors, with the intention of generating income to support the continual preservation of the Grade I listed monument. This generated much local interest and debate between both supporters and detractors, and following public consultations, the Planning Committee approved the scheme. The features noted above were APPROVED, not only by the Council Planning Department and Conservation Officer, but also by English Heritage and the vast majority of Portsmouth residents who responded to the consultation. As a Grade I listed monument, Point Battery shares the same designated status as Porchester Castle, York Minster and the Palace of Westminster as a building of exceptional interest. It is therefore sensible to assume that Planning Permission granted on such a building would require an intense level of scrutiny to ensure that the submitted design is appropriate and sympathetic to the structure, and that only work essential to the realisation of the proposal is carried out. Deviating from the approved documents would be considered a breach of planning control under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171A, which can result in enforcement action being taken against the property owners. This is ESPECIALLY critical when those unauthorised changes are carried out on a nationally important historic structure such as Point Battery. As an example, the opening of the gun ports are clearly an integral part of the design, allowing essential light and warmth into the interior of the spaces and providing a more authentic historic appearance from the outside. Failure to implement this and other design elements would be hugely detrimental to the overall scheme, and could very possibly harm its economic prospects in the future. This would be an insult, not only to the many people who supported this project and the aims expressed through its design, but also to the objectors, who may now be faced with the failed development they always feared. Both these groups are taxpayers who put their faith in the democratic principles that underpin the planning process. Enforcement action would be an appropriate measure when dealing with breaches of planning control concerning a Grade I listed monument, as expressed in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework: "Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control." If the Council wish to "maintain public confidence in the planning system", then we suggest they implement the scheme they agreed to in the first place, the approved documents can be found here: http://publicaccess.portsmouth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MTA36TMO5G000 Portsmouth City Council: please don't let this unique opportunity end up a victim of penny-pinching bureaucracy.

We have a charity that helps vulnerable people in the day throughout the week. This project is self-funded, and since it started 3 years ago one of the heartbreaking facts we have encountered is that vulnerable people are lost every year from the cold and heat. They die from extremes in weather while sleeping outside, often alone, with nowhere to go. When housing is available, many can't cope with the day to day management of a home, and they barely survive - often failing self care . Young and Old need somewhere to be. The most important reason for this petition is to help people live. The things that defeats the vulnerable the most - which is to them like a living death - is loneliness: having no where to rest to feel safe and cared for. This leads to greater mental distress and physical deterioration. Charities pick up the slack were they can were the vulnerable of our town are concerned, but this is not enough. We who have signed this petition call for the town to have a permanent night shelter that is both a secure and safe resource for all in our community.

For a country that is so wealthy, there is no excuse for people to be sleeping in the streets.

Some of the anticipated problems include: - building works and roadway disruption (including potentially restricting emergency service routes) - 4 new extra large, 3-storey, houses (out of character with the street), each with 2 parking spaces PLUS a driveway - removal of parking spaces outside the church on Annandale Road to accommodate the above new houses - therefore leading to increased parking problems (not to mention nowhere for the numerous weekly church visitors to park) - abolishing the trees and hedges surrounding the venue In addition to signing this petition, please feel free to comment on planning application numbers 15/00237 (houses - deadline 19 March) and 15/00238 (church - deadline 31 March) via the Bexley Council Online system: http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2638 OR send your comments in writing (including the above planning application numbers): BY EMAIL TO: [email protected] You may wish to copy councillors: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] BY POST TO: Miss J K Bansil, Bexley Council Civic Offices, 2 Watling Street, Bexleyheath DA6 7AT. You may also wish to copy the above councillor names at the same address. Thank you to those who signed the petition/submitted feedback by 19th March (the deadline for the houses proposal). THERE IS STILL TIME! Please sign this petition/ object by email/post by TUESDAY 31ST MARCH which is the final deadline for the church proposal. Thank you for your time.

Hale library and community hub, situated in the heart of Hale village, is one of the most used libraries in Trafford with a footfall of 80,000 visits a year and over 30 groups who use its rooms and services. It is a well loved and vibrant community asset which is under threat because Trafford Council want to reduce their running costs and realise a capital receipt from the sale of the library site. Thousands of residents and local business people have voiced their opposition to the downsizing or closure of this valuable community asset which is more than just books. From a wide range of children's activities through to services for older people the library provides the embodiment of social provision and community spirit. Friends of Hale Library, an independent charity, working in partnership with other community groups has listened to the needs and aspirations of the people in Hale and has come up with a long term and financially viable solution for the future of the library and community hub. We request that Trafford Council fulfil its obligation to Hale residents by engaging positively and openly with Friends of Hale Library and its partners who represent the voice of the people.

It is important because such revolting developments are chipping away at our London and sucking it dry of its lifeblood and individuality. This is a marvelous piece of London where independent traders can sell their wares which allow W11 a truly authentic edge ; and now they are proposing a sanitized shopping experience akin to the Westfield that does not enhance or reflect our beloved Portobello . This just has to stop so please sign and pass on. This outlines their plans : http://www.westway.org/news/shaping-future http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/12/londons-portobello-road-faces-redevelopment-with-westfield-style-shops-5101200/ http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/12/londons-portobello-road-faces-redevelopment-with-westfield-style-shops-5101200/

12,000 people used the pool last year in the four short months for which it was open. The council are representing the pool as a burden, but you cannot measure the value of a public asset in pounds and pence. What value can you put on the civic identity of Abingdon, living by the river, playing by the river? What value on the mental and physical wellbeing afforded by splashing about outdoors? What value on the happy memories of days out with the family enjoying the pool, the park, the relaxed atmosphere? Wallingford, Hinksey, even a small village like Woodstock manage to have outdoor pools, why not a large and growing town like Abingdon. Why do we have to lose our pool? We're set to have new houses built on every margin of the town to add to the 10 years of in-fill (brewery, penlon, etc). Will Abingdon residents have to get in their cars and travel to access leisure and recreational facilities? Is such a scenario good for Abingdon socially or economically? This is the last portion of Thames riverside with public recreational access, everything else has been sold off and built on. Can we afford to lose Abbey Meadows by letting the pool be turned into a 'riverside restaurant', only available to those that can afford it? If this happens, we will be paying to bulldoze over a public asset to set up a private commercial business. Another restaurant to add to all those in Abingdon and two new ones in the Old Gaol. The outdoor pool is part of what makes Abingdon unique. The pool is an asset not a burden and a confident town should invest in the pool and make it as good as Hinksey, Wallingford and even Woodstock. Does Abingdon deserve less? I don't think so. IMPORTANT: Please also go to www.saveourpool.org.uk and vote option A in the Vale of the White Horse public consultation. Options B & C will see the pool lost forever.