The tribe are fighting with the Brazilian government to try and stop the deforestation that is leading to the destruction of the Rainforest, the place they have called home for many many years. If we could make this happen, it would help hugely to draw attention to the pressing matter of Amazonian Rainforest destruction and to help to conserve the rich cultures of the native Amazonian people that protect the land. In an open letter to the England Manager, Roy Hodgson, the Kayapó leader (Chief Megarón) said: "We live beside the Xingu River in the eastern part of the Amazonian rainforest. Our village is very traditional and we still live as our forefathers, so this would be a great opportunity for you to see how we live"

More houses on Sheppey means more people on Sheppey. It is obvious that these ‘new’ people need jobs, medical services, pre-school and school places, better transport to get on and off and around the island, and many other facilities. Despite promises from previous developers, the considerable amount of new housing which has already appeared has not been accompanied by any such new infrastructure. Sheppey people are therefore unhappy at the expansion of Sheppey so far; traffic congestion, in particular, is truly awful. Bus and train services are not good enough to persuade residents to abandon their cars. There is not enough work for the existing population, most of whom commute on and off the island every day, compounding the traffic problems. This is all very bad for the environment and, ultimately, for the economy. The Facebook page “Sheppey NO more houses” offers photographic evidence for this congestion. It also demonstrates considerable disquiet at the way Kent County Council, Swale Borough Council and developers are perceived to see the Isle Sheppey as a profitable ‘dumping ground’, especially for London overspill.

In highly competitive markets that favour sellers, such as that in London at present, house sellers often renege on the agreement to sell, or increase the price after accepting an offer. This is distressing, time-consuming and costly for buyers, who are already faced with rapidly increasing house prices. Some buyers go through this process several times, costing them thousands of pounds in wasted fees. Vendors can continue to remarket properties, often through different agents, once sales have been agreed. The sales process is slowed down, buyers are misled and some agents do not receive their fees. Many house sales form part of a chain. If one person in the chain reneges on their agreement, this has financial and emotional implications for many others. Through no fault of their own, buyers miss out on houses, prices must be renegotiated or extra funds found. All this causes distress and increased financial pressure. Until completion, there is no guarantee or protection for buyers or sellers. This makes an already stressful process even more painful, frustrating and costly than it needs to be. In Scotland, there is far more protection. Should the seller attempt to accept a higher bid after a written offer and acceptance, their solicitor will refuse to act for them as this, according to the Law Society of Scotland code of practice, would be professional misconduct. The same rules should apply to England and Wales. This will reduce house price inflation, and make the process fairer and more transparent.

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

The current uncontrolled and incoherent construction of high-rise buildings dominating the London skyline to the detriment of both local areas and the city's general appearance needs to be brought under control. According to the Evening Standard, planning permission has been given for a further 288 high-rises, with who knows how many more to come? A coherent, effective and independent process (including proper consultation with those who will be most affected by the new buildings) that takes into account the visual, social and economic impact on those who have to live and work in their shadows needs to be established, preventing the permanent destruction of the city for the benefit of a few property developers and absentee owners. London desperately needs both affordable and social housing for those of us who work and try to live in the city, but these towers are no answer to that, and instead replace much-loved and familiar streetscapes that can offer the high-density, low-rise accommodation that most people want. Their architecture is all too often either mediocre or the result of famous architects exercising their egos at our expense; in addition to which too many are built and bought by overseas purchasers seeking to secure their wealth in empty properties in London, bringing no tax benefits to the city itself and exacerbating the lack of affordable housing for the rest of us. At the moment great stretches of the Thames are being walled-off by dismal glass towers for the private enjoyment of their occupants (to the extent that they are occupied) and the exclusion of all others. Even the status of Houses of Parliament as a Unesco World Heritage site is threatened by these invasive monsters. Offering £5000 in compensation to people whose houses would be permanently deprived of direct sunlight (as was recently offered by property developers on the Mount Pleasant site) is not only insulting but an admission of the deleterious effect these buildings can have on their neighbours. We need all those, including the millions of tourists who visit us every year, who love the chaotic, multitudinous, living creature that is London, to make known their rejection of these tacky gleaming stakes through its heart.

To the residents of Exeter, people who work in Exeter and visit Exeter, together with those who love Exeter… In an increasingly commercialised world, people should have the freedom to choose when they are exposed to advertising. In public open spaces we should be free from private and commercial interest and advertising should not be allowed to disfigure our city. We are Citizens not Consumers. Imaging how much more beautiful our city could be if it were not covered up by ugly advertising hoardings. Sao Paulo, Auckland, Bergen, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, and 1,500 towns throughout the world have already banned external advertising. In the UK, Bristol has a campaign to ban outdoor adverts. Plymouth has already banned adverts for pay-day loan companies, whilst Leeds, Newcastle and Bristol are considering it. We should add our wonderful city to the growing movement to reclaim our open spaces. CONSUMER PRESSURE: Excessive advertising encourages us to run ever faster on the treadmill of modern consumer life with damaging consequences. It contributes to growing consumer debt and to the consumption of ever increasing amounts of the earth’s finite resources. Additionally advertising is increasingly sowing the seeds of unhappiness by persuading the consumer to be dissatisfied with what they have got, and so creating an artificial need to buy the next thing. Evidence from the Good Childhood Inquiry indicates that the most vulnerable groups to commercial pressures - children and young people - show higher rates of mental health problems. Removing advertising in public spaces, such as billboards, would free us in our outdoor environment from the pressure to consume and allow us to see previously obscured parts of our city. Any remaining empty spaces can be reclaimed for the purpose of art, poetry and inspiring social campaigns (e.g. volunteering, encouraging recycling). VISUAL POLLUTION: Currently there are laws on air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution - now is the time to take back our city from this visual pollution so that we can be citizens rather than just consumers. There is no doubt that the removal of advertising can change the appearance of our city enormously and allow us to see parts of the city previously hidden to us, opening up new exciting vistas. For more information see – “The Advertising Effect” http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/the-advertising-effect-how-do-we-get-the-balance-of-advertising-right/ Joint campaign by Exeter Friends of the Earth and Steady State Devon

Full stripes have been an Albion tradition for over 100 years but the apparent design will render them almost invisible. The change of design has been introduced witjhout consultation with supporters, most of whom seem to be opposed to the new look. Football support should be about heritage and identity not just marketing gimmicks to try to make new merchandising opportunities. * Petitioners will refuse to buy new shirt designs and associated merchandise.

There is a suggestion that the BBC may be being used to promulgate propaganda in this affair, may not be unbiased or may be being coerced or influenced to serve one particular agenda. This suggestion should be investigated and BBC conduct explored in the light of their charter.

Sure Start Children's Centre services in Newcastle are facing a two thirds cut in funding over the next three years. This will mean closure of services, buildings, parents groups, activity for young children across the city. It will mean at least 100 jobs will be lost across the council and the voluntary sector. It will mean the opportunities for children and parents will continue to be worsened, following significant cuts already 2010, and the axing of the councils play and youth services last year. SSCCs in Newcastle are all rated Good and Outstanding by Ofsted, reach the vast majority of children under 5 and their families offering universal as well as targeted services. The council proposals:  For the three year budget cycle (2013 – 2016) - the cuts proposed equate to over £5 milllion (or approx. 65% of the total budget) The first £1 million savings have already been agreed, with a proposal for a further £1 million this year and then £3 million for the year 2015-16.   Overall the cuts since 2011 will equate to over 70% with the budget being reduced to less than £3 million from approximately £10 million in 2010-11.   The review of Sure Start and Early Years Services has now been incorporated with the Family Services Review which is being asked to cut £670,000 over the next two years out of budget of £2.3 million which is a 34% cut in services to the most vulnerable families, children and young people.   50% of these services are delivered by the council and 50% by the Community and Voluntary Sector. The city council have estimated that for the work they directly deliver this would equate to the lost of 63 full time equivalent posts (i.e. this will actually be more than 63 people losing their jobs as many jobs are part-time or may be job share) we can only estimate that the equivalent level of job cuts would be made by the Community and Voluntary sector meaning the job cuts proposed would be at least 126 full time posts (probably between 130 and 180 people losing their jobs)   The review has not identified which Sure Start Children’s Centres, Services, Buildings or staff will face cuts.   The councils review timetable includes: ·         April 2014 onwards: Options appraisal (looking with partners at what the cuts could like and coming up with proposals) ·         July 2014: Consultation on the proposed cuts and closures ·         August 2014: Partners agree which options are to be implemented ·         September 2014: Implementation of the cuts for both 2014-15 and 2015-16. ·         March 2015: All cuts implemented.   The councils proposals for 2014 – 2016: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/drupalncc.newcastle.gov.uk/files/wwwfileroot/your-council-and-democracy/budget_2014-15_-_pc_-_2_-_family_services_review_0-25_incorporating_early_years.pdf   Previous year budgets: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/budget-annual-report-and-spending/budget   Unison’s campaign page: http://unison-newcastle.org.uk/sure-start.html   Motion passed at Unison Newcastle City AGM: http://www.unison-newcastle.org.uk/assets/files/AGM2014/140210_18%20Motion%20-%20Save%20Sure%20Start.pdf

We need to change the unjust laws that are causing us so much suffering. We are an advantage to the UK, but we have to wait too many years for an answer to our asylum claims. We are not allowed to work in the meantime and have to survive on £5 a day. Many of us become ill, physically and mentally.

The permission was granted by the Forest of Dean District Council for their ownership, but the Monmouthshire Council have been making excuses for the last few years since the original proposal. All over the UK county after county's citizens have been benefiting from these valuable resources for leisure and transport purposes. Why are we waiting and consistently fobbed off with trivial excuses all the time? There are no cycle paths through Chepstow while everywhere else benefits. Despite all the Bills, Papers, and Consultations you pass and now 'The Wales we Want' campaign, we are ignored. This path would enable less able bodied people to access the beauty of the Wye Valley, it would provide business and opportunities locally, and hold these opportunities within Chepstow and surrounding villages where presently people go further afield for leisure facilities. Also it would encourage forms of sustainable transport such as cycling and walking, enabling many people to leave their cars at home. The already established paths in the UK are used by thousands everyday for multiple purpose. Why are we denied this resource, is it because our Council is blind to the future?

In 2014 and 2013 the reported cost of policing this group was £1million in Brighton alone. There were 27 arrests during the 2014 march, and several violent clashes bringing injury to bystanders and destruction to property. The Marchers and EDL members often stay in town once the march is over and create an atmosphere of intimidation, often resulting in further violence. It is clear that the people of Brighton do not want the March to take place, and make their presence known along the route. Free speech is important in our country, nobody wants to deny peaceful protest no matter how abhorrent the opinions of the protesters are to us. But when a protest consistently brings violence, stands for racism, hatred of minorities and scapegoating, AND costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to police, it's time to put an end to it. They are disturbing the peace and inciting hatred, and we want to stop them marching through our town. To show how serious this cause is, I include a link to a short video. This shows one of the mass street fights which occurred during the march, which police were powerless to prevent. WARNING contains violent scenes. http://youtu.be/uU8TnvCgBqQ