Many European countries, with more space than the UK, build parking under squares, hospitals and public buildings, while we do not - preferring to take up valuable space with multi-storey monstrosities. Huge centralised hospitals, with large catchment areas, are becoming the norm, necessitating the use of private transport for a great many, yet there is never enough parking for day patients, staff and visitors.

This puts a strain on the already stretched A&E services not only in Kent but in the entire country. Our large elderly community have been the mainstay of this country over the decades, gave their time and their lives to serve this country and now, when they need help the most, it is embarrassingly unavailable. Not everyone can get to the William Harvey in Ashford which is now our closest A&E department and the waiting times have increased exponentially, especially now with the closure of the Canterbury A&E. As time goes on the infrastructure is constantly changing to meet the needs of an ever increasing demand on traffic which in itself adds to the increased need for A&E to be a permanent feature in the town as it is one of the busiest ports in the world.

people who have cystic fibrosis suffer their whole (short life span ) lifetime, in and out of hospital frequently at more cost to NHS maybe with correct meds and funding their lifetime would be more bearable

Many things we consume in this country contains a carcinogenic, which has resulted in the high rates of cancer etc. in this country, thereby overloading the NHS, killing people and costing this country £millions.

Hospitals are being forced to send vulnerable patients home after surgery due to "bed blocking" but many still need time to recuperate before they are well enough to cope at home, especially those living alone and the aged. My own 83 year old mother benefited from a short stay at Cheadle Hospital after a knee operation. Without that support she would have needed 24 hour care, especially as she suffered from dementia.

This is a main thoroughfare for pedestrians between Winchester University (via West Hill Cemetery), Winchester City Center and the Railway Station. I personally walk there frequently, have impaired vision coupled with delayed reactions, and so find it hard crossing busy roads. It can take up to five minutes to cross sometimes and it is difficult to see in both directions on the hill, and then you have Clifton Terrace traffic to consider. This is a very dangerous crossing point in our city which should have had a green man crossing years ago as there are already drop curbs in place. It isn't JUST a crossing safety issue either. It is well known that we have a SERIOUS air pollution problem in Winchester, where 40 to 50 people a year die from air pollution related illnesses. If the city could be made more accessible to people wanting to get about on foot, in a wheelchair, with pushchairs, mobility scooter or on bicycle, this would help to increase air quality. There are nowhere NEAR ENOUGH places for people to cross Romsey Road safely, with the pavement disappearing on one side for large sections, and it is one of the main air pollution traps of the city. Priority of access to Winchester needs to be turned around so that walking and other low-carbon forms of transport are catered for in the first instance, followed by public transport (buses). Also speed limits MUST be properly enforced, especially with the new homes to be built where the old Police HQ was. This will create massive increases in footfall and greater need for safe crossing points and enforcement of speed limits. I suggest flashing signs to tell drivers to stick to 20 mph. Last year Winchester City Council, in collaboration with WinACC (Winchester Action on Climate Change), launched FeetFirst, their Walking campaign led by Liz Kesler. They have been conducting Walking Audits on different routes to determine areas which need to be made easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and others using low-carbon forms of transport. This includes making sure pavements are maintained, foliage is kept out of the way so it doesn't take up too much room, and adequate signage. The crossing for which I am campaigning was highlighted as a major obstacle to people getting around Winchester on foot. Work has already started to dig up the pavement to see if it is possible to put in the electrics for a crossing. This is promising, but I won't hold my breath as progress has been delayed. Also, it needs to be a crossing that beeps all the time and gives pedestrians a fair amount of time (1 minute) PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION AND HELP MAKE WALKING THE PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORT FOR GETTING AROUND THIS BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC CITY!

Despite closing some time ago for refurbishment, East Barnet Health Centre has reopened and reestablished it's surgery. This however hasn't seen the reopening of the baby clinic, meaning that local parents /carers are left without the access to monitor their children's health closely and seekany advice or guidance they may need. The nearest open clinic is at Vale Drive Health Centre in High Barnet, meaning several of us find it difficult and are unable to travel to an already busy clinic. The health visitors say that they hope the clinic will reopen soon, however we hope to assist and show that the clinic being reopened is of importance to us within the local area. Our children are denied the chance to easily access the checks these clinics provide and parents / carers cannot access any information or advice they may need as easily as they should be able to. We miss out the chance to have our children weighed, measured, get advice on weining , breast feeding and so on. It is not always possible or realistic to travel and use the already over used clinic on a Monday at Vale Drive. Please please sign and share to show this clinic is needed and important to us local users.

Regarding the current public consultation on the proposed closure of 4 community hospitals (Paignton, Dartmouth, Ashburton/Buckfastleigh and Bovey Tracey) by the S Devon & Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group and their replacement with more care at home and in local care homes. The consultation questionnaire makes it clear that the changes proposed by CCG are a cost-saving exercise and not led by a pursuit of clinical excellence and the best interest of patients. Sale of the hospital sites for development will undoubtedly produce a quick, one-off financial gain but our concern is that any funding freed up for more community and home-based care will be less high-profile and therefore easier to target in future rounds of cuts... We recall the 'care in the community' initiative many years ago that led to the closure of specialised mental health units - since then there has been a gradual erosion of out-patient mental health services, until now, here in Devon, we have no long-term services for people with chronic mental health problems remaining - just 'acute' services which only provide short-term support - after this patients are on their own to sink or swim. Is this to be the future for our elderly and chronically ill too? The suggestion is that that many services currently provided by the highly professional staff at community hospitals could be provided by private care homes instead, at lower cost and that this would help 'stimulate the care home market'. This is privatisation of the NHS 'by the back door', which we believe is politically-motivated. Presumably these cost-savings could be achieved because private care homes have lower rates of pay, few medically trained staff and little in the way of long-term job security. Unfortunately, despite these savings, or perhaps because of them, the care-home sector in this country is in a state of crisis and is, in our opinion, in no fit state to take on more responsibility for the care of our chronically sick and elderly. We do not think that it is an appropriate use of tax-payers money to 'stimulate' profits for this sector and those that benefit from these, at the expense of our hospitals and their patients. In addition, this 'race-to-the-bottom' - the cost-saving privatisation of the NHS and other public sector services - is extremely short-sighted in our view. It does not take into account the long-term effects on individuals and the community of the loss of decently paid, secure local jobs. These are already few and far between here and the loss of decent, long-term employment in our communities is a surely a major contributing factor to increasing physical and emotional ill-health... Finally, we object strongly to the form of the consultation questionnaire provided on paper and online at www.communityconsultation.co.uk consultation feedback mechanism promoted by the CCG. We were shocked by the manipulative design of this form and felt that the respondent is being co-erced into answering in such a way as would support the CCG's proposals. We feel that the questions are leading and loaded and the structure of the form constrains and restricts free expression and doesn't encourage or support the communication of the thoughts and opinions of the respondent. We therefore consider it not fit for purpose and thereby challenge the validity of any results obtained from this during the consultation process. We expect the health service and the local CCG to champion the case for maintaining the standards necessary for good quality patient care and to elicit the public's opinions and thoughts about such an important issue, not to try and coax us into accepting a reduction in provision. We would not dispute that we need better care for chronically ill and older people locally and at home, but this should surely be in addition to, not at the expense of, the wonderful, caring and professional service that we already receive from our hospitals - within our communities and close to the support of family and friends.

The Save Rothbury Hospital Campaign believe that the suspension of in-patient services at Rothbury is having significant adverse consequences for our local population. We want to protect this precious and valuable resource. We ask the NHSCCG and NHS Foundation Trust to think with their hearts - not with their wallets. The immediate effects the sudden closure are: 1. Patients are not being admitted to a low tech facility close to home. This will cause a higher rate of acute admissions to the new Cramlington hospital. 2. Patients are unable to return to a low tech facility for rehabilitation, and discharge planning, close to home after an acute admission elsewhere. 3. Most crucially of all - we are left with no facility to provide end of life care for patients close to home, if circumstances, including patient choice, mean they cannot be cared for in their own homes. The people who are suffering (and will continue to suffer) as a result of this heartless decision are our frail and vulnerable residents of Rothbury and Coquetdale. We refuse to allow this to happen - we care about all of our people.

In Dec 2015 a young player in Essex was killed from a head injury on a hockey pitch. In October I had written to the FIH telling them I was so scared by the rules that I would not let my own children play and warning that it was only a matter of time before someone was killed by a head injury. I had been writing to the FIH on this subject for over 8 years. A year earlier a 27 year old narrowly escaped death from a hockey ball to the head with an emergency operation, and back in 2012 a young lady was hit by a ball and died instantly. The Mail campaigned on this in Dec 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2873726/Following-death-Lizzie-Watkins-does-hockey-refuse-protect-players.html However the unnecessary risks in this game are, in my opinion, far more threatening to children. Consider the fact that children must wear a gum shield, which plainly indicates that incidents around the mouth are a threat. However a ball or stick in the mouth will not normally kill but a ball or stick to the temple or throat can, and does, kill and a gum shield will do nothing to protect from that danger. Young players are closer to the surface and hence closer to the danger. They do not know the best ways to avoid the dangers, however they or their counterparts are able to learn skills today that used to only be accessible to expert player, and which are now legal and life threatening. Whilst I was at school a boy was killed by a ball to the head and another needed facial reconstructive surgery. That was just what I knew about. Hockey has had 35 years since these incidents to make this game safe and whilst they made good headway initially, over the past 17 years they have steadily relaxed the rules and consequently made the game more dangerous, even in schools. In 2015 the FIH removed the rule that prohibited playing the ball at or above head-height. England Hockey has a veto for all rules in domestic games. They canvassed hockey participators. Over 6000 players, coaches & umpires (parents were not specifically canvassed) responded. 59% stated that this was unsafe for use with children. However in Aug 2015 England Hockey ignored the warning and implemented this rule change across the 11 aside game – including with children. Club players can choose whether to place themselves in danger by entering a pitch, however school children are generally forced to play, commonly without them or their parents realising the mortal danger they face - and completely unnecessarily so. Former GB international and England captain Sarah Blanks, now director of sport at King Edward VI High School, Birmingham, stated, "Even in schools hockey, we see plenty of split heads. At Olympic level, it's more extreme still. You don't go into it without understanding the physical pain you'll encounter." GB Gold Medal winning keeper Maddie Finch stated ‘Any hockey goalkeeper who says they’ve never closed their eyes for a second and thought, “please don’t hit me” is lying,’ and that is for a heavily protected keeper compared to an outfield player who also ends up in the line of fire and is allowed only a gum shield and shin pads! Kate Richardson Walsh had her jaw fractured during GB’s first match at the 2012 Games. She had surgery to insert a plate — but returned just three games later wearing a protective mask. Something not allowed to other players and which does not protect the vulnerable and lethal temple or throat areas. The solution is not just about physically protecting players - it is about the simple process of making the game safe, or at least immensely safer, through simple, and in some cases obvious, rule revisions. Hockey is not like Football, in that the rules have not changed for decades, the FIH changes the Rules of Hockey almost every year and often in a number of ways. Indeed last season the FIH made 4 rule changes which resulted from issues and recommendation I had raised, 2 from 2009 & 2 from 2016 - however none of these improved safety and the many recommendations I made regarding safety in the same period were ALL ignored. Rule changes are simple to implement in Hockey and if the FIH will not implement them then schools should adopt a safer set of rules before they allow our children to face lethal consequences. If you are still not convinced at the dangers then before you let your child play hockey at school or anywhere else take a look at the pictures in the second half of this Mail news story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3748170/Captain-fell-team-mate-goalie-called-Mad-Dog-vegan-star-striker-Great-Britain-hockey-stars-going-glory-tonight-today-s-game-sheer-savagery.html It is not just the threat of death that worries me, injuries are very common in the game. My professional warning (as an insurance expert) is that a) we do not know how common injuries are because they are rarely, if ever, reported to the insurer (people who have been negligent and allowed an injury do not want to admit that they could be sued) and b) we should not expect that a morbid injury will be protected and supported by insurance, because I doubt the cover in place will ever pay out. So please don't let your child be the next to hit the surface and not get up - support my campaign and let's get this great game made safe and enjoyable for everyone! Risks and Proposed Solutions People are asking what rules need changing and why? If you are interested read the following blog https://saferulesforschoolshockey.wordpress.com/ or see a set of proposed simpler and safer rules at: https://saferulesforschoolshockey.wordpress.com/proposed-safer-rules-for-hockey/ You can also see some of the ball and stick hazards below: https://youtu.be/DzDGUVjIprw

It is another step to privatisation of the NHS. Walk in centres are all-new buildings financed by local taxpayers. They alleviate pressure on A &E. It is always very busy and its usual for an hour's wait to see a nurse which proves how well used it is

Please ban the spraying of Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides on our streets and parks.The use of glyphosates has already been banned or restricted in 8 countries. It is not acceptable that ourselves, our children and the animals we share our community with are being routinely exposed to these chemicals whether we like it or not. Please help us ban the spraying of Monsanto's Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides on our streets and parks.This is a matter of great importance for those of us who care about each other's health and the health of our children, our cats, our dogs and all the flora and fauna of this town and its surrounding villages, of course including our beloved bees. If you don't live in this area, click here to sign or start the campaign for your city: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-a-pesticide-campaign