We need our hospital services back. Maternity and paediatric services at Eastbourne District General Hospital (DGH) were downgraded a year ago. The local NHS Trust said it was a temporary measure. Now we are facing a bleak future with these core services likely to be lost forever in Eastbourne. Why? In May 2013, the local NHS Trust centralised consultant-led maternity services for the area at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings leaving only a midwifery unit at the DGH. At the same time it stopped overnight care for children at the Eastbourne hospital. We were assured these changes were temporary for 18 months only. In the meantime, the East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), the organisation which commissions NHS services, launched a review of permanent services for maternity, paediatrics and emergency gynaecology in East Sussex. It drew up six options, none of which include a two-site option for consultant- delivered services. Option 6 (selected by the CCGs) will keep consultant-led services for maternity and paediatrics at the Conquest Hospital. So people in Eastbourne will have to travel to Hastings for this care with an average total transfer time of 1 hour 34 minutes from the DGH to the Conquest. This far exceeds acceptable safety limits for many interventions such as emergency Caesarean sections. What is our alternative? Save the DGH launched an alternative proposal for the CCGs to consider alongside its six options. Option 7 keeps consultant-led maternity services, emergency gynaecology and in-patient paediatrics at both hospitals. Our proposal also maintains a level one special care baby unit and a short stay paediatric assessment unit at the DGH and the Conquest. It also goes further by stating that all core services, like emergency general surgery and emergency orthopaedics which have recently been removed, are needed and should be provided at the DGH. Option 7 maintains all of the services that the IRP stated must remain. Why do we need Jeremy Hunt's help? The CCGs made a ruling on permanent changes to services in June and selected Option 6. Then HOSC met on the 28th July and failed to refer the decision back to the Secretary of State. The IRP ruling states that these Consultant-led services must remain in Eastbourne and Hastings and therefore we ask Jeremy Hunt to intervene and enforce the IRP ruling. People living in Eastbourne deserve a hospital in the town that provides them with the care they need. If maternity and paediatrics are permanently downgraded at the DGH, we will have the most disadvantaged town in the UK for the population size. Please support us by signing. We need your help! For more information visit www.savethedgh.org.uk

There are already many millions of visitors to the area each year, hikers, cyclists and motorists, a number which Scarborough Borough Council's Tourism Strategy is seeking to increase. The removal of public toilets in this area will leave many people in distress and will discourage tourism in the area.

East Lothian Council should not be able to dictate to their tenants what animals they can keep, unless the animal causes damage to the property or is a danger to the public. So if you have a GUINEA PIG, RAT, CHINCHILLAS, DEGUS, TURTLE, CHIPMUNK, SNAKE, LIZARD, GECKO, SCORPION, AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG, FROGS, TOADS, NEWTS, SALAMANDERS, STICK INSECTS, ANY INVERTEBRATE, TARANTULAS, SPIDERS, AFRICAN LAND SNAILS OR ANYTHING REMOTELY EXOTIC YOU WILL BE MADE TO GET RID OF THEM.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are forced/pressured into unsupervised contact orders every year, between their children and the perpetrators who abused them. This is because the UK law states that it is in the 'child's best interest to have two parents', regardless of whether there is a history of violence. The government has limited funding for contact centres, so unless violence has been proven to have happened 'towards children' (many parents shield their children from this happening) in the majority of cases contact is ordered, and moves out of contact centres as quickly as possible. This frequently happens after risk assessments are ordered. Perpetrators are offered an opportunity to offer excuses for the abuse, to discredit victims. Abuse can then be cited as the result of a bad relationship – thus eliminating the risk as the relationship has ended - so contact can be moved out of contact centres. Saving the government substantial costs in the long term. Anger management and domestic violence courses may be ordered, but these offer no guarantees. What isn't acknowledged is the effect the violence and emotional abuse has on the abused parents. The abuse may not be aimed directly at children - often because the abused parents shield them and take the abuse themselves - but any parent who has been punched, choked, kicked, verbally abused, bullied, and demeaned, will feel extremely anxious about unsupervised access. It's common for perpetrators to seek contact, knowing that it will cause victims further distress. Many victims of abuse are so distressed at the idea of unsupervised contact orders, they are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated. Medication has side-effects. In a recent study of 1,829 people who have taken antidepressants in the past five years, led by Professor John Read, University of Liverpool, 60% of participants reported 'feeling emotionally numb', 52% 'feeling not like myself', 42% reduction in positive feelings, and 39% reported caring less about others. These side effects aren't in children's best interests. Yet parents are forced/pressured into a position, in that if they struggle with anxiety or depression, as a result of unsupervised contact orders, they risk being labelled 'fragile' and losing their children. Either into care, or to the abusive parent (who can then state he or she is reformed) because the primary carer is then considered an 'emotional risk'. The UK is one of the only countries to remove children for such a reason. I believe this is wrong. In cases in that parents have been found guilty of significant abuse towards their partners, risk assessments should be carried out by specialist domestic violence workers, to help find a way forward for contact to progress that is safe for chidren, and that doesn't subject victims to further distress. This does not necessarily mean no contact, or long-term contact in contact centres (as understandably funding is short.) In many cases contact could be supervised into the long term by a party the primary carer feels assured by, without over night contact. This would significantly reduce emotional distress, which would be positive for both children and victims of domestic violence into the long term. Fear leads to poor mental health, dysfunction and addictions (all a strain on public funding.) It can also lead to desperate-measures; Parents have fled the UK to escape such contact orders. Only to be brought back under the Hague Convention, to lose their children forever for seeking to protect them. Children's best interests should be paramount. But the fundamental flaw in the current law, is that it neglects to take into account parental emotional wellbeing. If primary carers are subjected to significant stress, this inevitably effects children. Although this is recognised in court proceedings, and is intended to be taken into account, there is a SERIOUS CONFLICT; The current UK law states that children can be removed from parents who 'pose emotional risk', Because of this there is reluctance from parents to admit to struggling with court orders. Any parent who has been violently attacked over many years, by his or her partner, will inevitably feel afraid of unsupervised/unsupported contact. This is not because he or she is mentally ill, or of a fragile disposition, it is because parents instinctively look to protect their children. Take the ability to protect your children away from you and it leads to distress. I believe it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents. But I believe it is equally important for parents who have been abused not to be subjected to further distress. This isn't in children's best interests. Nor for children to be put at further risk of abuse. I ask for re-assurance for victims of domestic violence, that children be kept safe. Please sign this petition and share it! Thank you! Zoe.

We believe that this is a necessary course of action in order to attract investment and economic benefit back to Hereford. The state of Herefordshire also discourages potential investors and tourism alike from visiting the County, this is potentially an economic disaster for Hereford.

North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust is the largest ambulance service in the country covering 5,400 square miles and serving a population of more than seven million people. It is already extremely challenging for an ambulance service to provide excellent response and clinical care in a timely manner. As part of a cost improvement plan the Trust Board and Management is proposing to reduce day and night time cover across the whole of the North West. This action without doubt will have a detrimental impact on patient care and safety as a reduction in resources will mean that patients may have to wait longer than they do now on some occasions. It will affect residents from Carlisle to Crewe. The proposed cuts in resources will mean that Ambulances that cover outlying rural towns and villages will be pulled into urban areas to respond to 999 calls. The public everywhere will have a lower level of service whether they live in large urban areas, towns or villages. The North West Ambulance Service is a unique service with its mixture of large urban cities and vast rural areas. The North West should not suffer any detriment in the provision of patient care provided by the Ambulance Service just because of its size. We are campaigning to keep the Ambulance resources that we currently provide for our patients within the North West. To make these cuts will have an impact on patients and could ultimately cost lives. Please support our campaign

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/child-protection-privatised

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.

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 number 30 bus from Richmond to Keld in North Yorkshire is very important to me as it is my lifeline. Living in a rural area, independence is very important for me but following cuts by North Yorkshire County Council my bus service has been withdrawn completely meaning a loss of independence which in turn has triggered a return of severe depression and anxiety. I travel by bus regularly for my dentist,doctors and psychiatric appointments all of which are over 9 miles away. I am now no longer able to go shopping and do any kind of leisure pursuits with my son as I am unable to get a connection from Richmond to travel by train should I wish to do so. My son who also uses the bus has now had to stop drama classes as he can no longer get home in the evening. The loss of this service is having a detrimental impact on my state of mind and well-being and we feel our right to public transport has been taken away leaving us in total isolation. Richmond our nearest town is over 20 miles away. I cannot drive and I am unable to afford a taxi or costs of other transport as I live on a limited budget. Having to move away from this area would have a devastating impact on my mental health as I would have to leave my job, where my employers are totally supportive of my mental illness, my home where my landladies are also supportive of my mental illness. Many other people in the surrounding areas have also been badly affected. Both the Government and local council must understand that cutting bus services to make short term savings has hugely detrimental effects on people. Upper Swaledale also gets a lot of tourists and walkers along the Coast 2 Coast path and Pennine Way during the year who also use the bus services. Cutting off access to the countryside means that businesses and the tourist industry will also suffer. Please sign my petition to Leader of North Yorkshire County Council: Councillor John Weighell calling for them to think again and reinstate the number 30 bus service between Richmond to Keld.

Cumbria is the second largest county in England covering 2632 square miles, therefore it is extremely challenging for an Ambulance Service to provide excellent clinical care in a timely manner. As part of a cost saving plan the management of our Ambulance Service are proposing to reduce night time cover by a third in Carlisle, Cumbrias only city. They are also reducing the night time provision provided by a Rapid Response Car in the town of Penrith which is manned by a Paramedic some 16 miles south of Carlisle. This will have a detrimental impact on patient care & safety as a reduction in resources will mean that patients may have to wait even longer than they do now on some occassions. It will affect not only residents in Carlisle but most probably all of North Cumbria as Ambulances that cover outlying rural towns & villages are pulled into Carlisle to respond to the proposed shortfall in resource. Cumbria is a unique county and as such cannot and should not suffer any detriment in the provision of patient care provided by the Ambulance Service just because of its size. We are campaigning to keep the Ambulance resources that we currently provide for our patients within Cumbria. To make these cuts will have an impact on patients and could ultimately cost lives. Please support our campaign