The 'will of the people' and tide of public opinion on Brexit is shifting. Brexit is not inevitable. It is time to re-think and reject Brexit. Giving British people a real choice, based on fact, is the only democratic option for the UK Parliament.

The proposed closure of the office means relocating 250 staff outwith Coatbridge. The closure of the office will have a crushing affect of Coatbridge Main Street and other small businesses within the area. Over 50% of the staff within the office are on alternative working patterns such as school term time or compressed working days; to suit family life within the area. Staff relocation's are currently planned between September & November. The closure of this office is part of the conservatives centralization plans to remove hundreds of government offices out of small towns and place them within large hubs in cities. The campaign is headed by Hugh Gaffney MP & PCS (DWP Lanarkshire Branch)

This very brave women ( whether you agree with her stance or not) should not be placed in fear of her wellbeing or find her life constantly threatened. Her freedom has been significantly curtailed. For the sake of freedom and justice she & her family must be protected.

We, the undersigned residents of Seaford, call upon Lewes District Councillors to ensure that Salt’s Cottage, BN25 1DR is returned back to the people of Seaford, from LDC control, free of charge. To date this has been dealt with by officers, which is un-democratic in the circumstances. The property in question known as Salts Cottage was originally purchased with Seaford resident’s tax monies. When Seaford Urban Council was devolved to LDC under the Local Government Act of 1972 the cottage was included in the assets transferred for no fee. Since 1972 LDC has benefited from rental income from this 3 bedroom residential property through Social Housing tenancies. As the property is no longer of a standard to rent in this way and currently lies empty LDC officers offered to sell the property to Seaford Town Council for the market sum of £340,000. This is not currently an option either financially or ethically. This is a property that was bought by the people of Seaford, and it should be devolved to STC, as other assets have been over the years, at no cost. The Town Council have identified uses for the property that will benefit the community as a whole.

It's a great place for wakefield people to visit so why should we have to pay for it? The parking here used to be free but now we have to pay. The carpark isn't tarmac its just dirt just like it was years ago when it was free. So who do we have to pay now for the exact same thing.

Bodlondeb provides a beloved home and essential care services for our elderly and vulnerable residents in Penparcau, Aberystwyth and it also serves the North Ceredigion area. The council's planned closure of Bodlondeb will force the current and future residents into the insecurity of private care home provision which may be many many miles away from their beloved community, family and friends. The closure of Bodlondeb would also mean the loss of 33 good and secure local jobs. The campaign to save Bodlondeb is receiving massive public support but the council seem determined to move forward with their plans. If Ceredigion Council do manage to close Bodlondeb they have said that they plan to close four more council care homes in Ceredigion in this wave of closures so please can EVERYONE in Ceredigion sign this petition to ensure that we keep Bodlondeb and our other public sector care home provision in Ceredigion open. The Save Bodlondeb Campaign is a community, union and cross-party campaign. We the undersigned oppose the closure of Bodlondeb without an appropriate replacement facility. We call on Ceredgion county council to ensure that there is continuing and unbroken provision of public residential care for the elderly in the Aberystwyth area as Bodlondeb has provided for over 50 years. Rydym ni, yr isod, yn gwrthwynebu cau Bodlondeb heb gyfleuster amgen priodol. Rydym yn galw are Gynor Sir Ceredigion i sicrhau bod darpariaeth di-ddor o ofal breswyl cyhoeddus ar gyfer yr henoed yn barhau yn ardal Aberystwyth fel mae Bodlondeb wedi ei darparu ers dros 50 mlynedd.

Jake Berry MP (Tory minister for the so-called Northern "Powerhouse") has advised cash strapped Wirral Council to use its own resources and reserves to help victims of the huge explosion that tore through the centre of New Ferry, Wirral earlier this year. 33 people were injured 2 seriously, many businesses were destroyed, a further dozen shops and services put out of action and 30 families displaced from their homes. With so much of the town centre destroyed, shoppers have stopped going to New Ferry and the surviving businesses are suffering from loss of trade and facing financial ruin. Insurance companies have been very slow to act and indeed reluctant to pay out (with nobody having yet been found guilty of causing the explosion), leaving residents and businesses without sufficient financial support with which to rebuild their lives. Many people are not only suffering financially, but also emotionally with depression and the equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder. The government has shockingly refused to call the explosion a NATIONAL INCIDENT, what on earth does constitute a "national incident" then ? Despite pleas for funding assistance from local MPs, businesses and residents, the government has turned its back on this devastated community, citing rules and regulations for not offering any disaster relief funding to help those affected. New Ferry, Wirral - a deprived community in a Labour controlled authority - is being treated entirely differently to other communities in the UK that have faced similar, and seemingly less significant, disasters. Jake Berry's refusal of assistance is an absolute disgrace and makes a mockery of the title Northern Powerhouse. New Ferry should be treated the same as other communities that have recently suffered (as should every community in the country should a similar disaster befall them), and the rebuilding of its centre should be funded by the British government A.S.A.P If you agree that New Ferry (and every other community in the country affected by such an economically damaging disaster) should be treated fairly and given government support, please, please sign this petition, thank you

My name is Eddie Gilbertson and I was diagnosed with pleural plaques in 1999. I know what it's like to have an asbestos-related condition and how important it is to receive piece of mind when you are told you have a toxic material in your body. I co-ordinate and run the South Wales Asbestos Support Group (SWASG - http://www.swasg.wales/about), and with their backing and support I am bringing you the information and background surrounding this petition. The purpose of this petition is to bring attention to a House of Lords decision that residents of both England and Wales should not be entitled to compensation when diagnosed with pleural plaques, while their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are allowed to do so. Since the 1980s, the presence of pleural plaques was treated by the courts as giving rise to a potential provisional damages claim. An individual would be able to instruct solicitors to investigate liability in the knowledge they would achieve peace of mind - they could also be entitled to compensation should they develop a more serious asbestos-related condition in the future. In 2007, the House of Lords ruled that people with the condition would no longer qualify for compensation after insurance companies challenged workers’ rights to claim. Compensation for pleural plaques was reinstated in Scotland in 2009 and again in Northern Ireland in 2011 through legislation passed by their devolved parliaments with the knowledge that the combination of the physical change to the lung tissue when combined with the inevitable anxiety as to the individual’s future and the risk of development of more serious conditions, ought to be actionable. This leaves those who were exposed to asbestos dust and fibres throughout England and Wales unable to claim compensation if they are diagnosed with pleural plaques. Caused by exposure to asbestos dust and fibres, pleural plaques are a condition affecting the membrane surrounding your lungs and lining the inside of your ribcage. After being exposed to asbestos, it is very common for areas of the membrane to become thickened and fibrous, and to accumulate a chalky material. Despite there being no symptoms associated with pleural plaques, the fact that they are there signals the presence of asbestos fibres in the lungs which may independently cause life-threatening or fatal diseases, such as asbestosis or mesothelioma. To put it shortly, pleural plaques are an indicator of potentially serious health problems in the future. Diagnosis means that people with previous asbestos exposure can feel great anxiety about what their future holds, and can even alter someones state of mind. I know several individuals who have since been diagnosed with pleural plaques, as well as the families and friends of others and it can be very harrowing to see such fine gentlemen and ladies know that one day they could develop a life threatening condition and get no support, all while their mental well-being deteriorates. When you are told you have asbestos fibres in your lungs - no matter how serious the related condition - it's frightening and isolating. What does is mean for your health and future, and the future of your family? It is for these reasons that I wanted to set up the SWASG, and I am now bringing forward this petition.

On the 6th April 2017 a petition with over 5000 signatures was presented to Brighton and Hove Council. Over 3000 signatures were signed on the streets of Brighton and 2200 online. The petition was against the implementation of PSPO’s. PSPO’s give Council workers and the Police the power to give Homeless people and Travellers an on the spot £100 fine for occupying a tent, vehicle or caravan in 12 locations across the city. Failure to pay the fine can lead to prosecution and a further £1000 fine. People breaching the order must provide a name address and date of birth. Failure to positively identify someone can lead to arrest. So effectively you can be fined, arrested and prosecuted for being homeless and having no money to pay for the ‘crime’ of being homeless. Brighton and Hove council voted for the petition to be noted but not to be forwarded to the Policy and Resources committee for further debate. Usually any petition with over 1250 signatures is debated at committee. Despite opposition to this legislation from Liberty, Equality and Human Rights Commission, local charities, specialist lawyers and the local community, Councillors blocked due democratic process by voting against the legislation being debated by the Committee that decided to implement it. It appears that Brighton and Hove Council want to sweep away homeless people and Travellers from our city through criminalisation and attempting to block any debate or opposition to the legislation. This will not work, it cannot work and we are standing against it. PSPO’s should only be used to target specific behaviours and not specific groups. This statement has been echoed by Sussex Police as well as human rights lawyers. This legislation is a direct assault on the homeless community and Gypsies and Travellers. PSPO’s have been misused in this context as living in a tent, caravan or vehicle are not anti-social activities in themselves. Article 8, of the Human rights act the right to a private and family life, is being infringed by this use of PSPO’s. Under the European convention on Human Rights, all public bodies owe a duty to facilitate the Gypsy way of life. This legislation is an attack on the Gypsy way of life and therefore in breach of Equality Duty and The European Framework Convention for the protection of Minorities. This policy is unlawful and need to be brought back to committee to be looked at again as it stands Brighton and Hove Council have blocked any further debate.

We call upon the transport secretary to: 1) Pledge his immediate backing for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme including a new state-of-the-art 30-minute rail link between Manchester and Leeds – a ‘Crossrail North’; 2) Make an immediate commitment to at least £59 billion ‘catch-up cash’ over the coming decade to support the transport priorities being developed by Transport for the North; 3) Give Transport for the North the same powers as those enjoyed by Transport for London so that it can also raise private finance towards its own transport priorities. The government has announced its backing for the £31bn Crossrail 2 rail scheme in London just days after it has cancelled plans to electrify key rail routes, and rowed back on its long-standing commitment to electrify the trans-pennine link between Manchester and Leeds. Crossrail 2 was NOT in the Conservative Party Manifesto - whereas Northern Powerhouse Rail was! New analysis by IPPR North shows that over the past decade public spending on transport in London has been more than double that in the North – the North would have received £59bn more in investment over the last decade if it had received the same per person for transport as London. This is set to get worse, with planned public and public/private expenditure set at nearly £2000 per head, compared with £400 per head in the North BEFORE Crossrail 2 is taken into account. This is not just a matter of fairness. This is not special pleading. Transport investment needn’t be either/or. But lack of government spending on Northern transport is holding the whole economy back. Northern prosperity is national prosperity.

GSK have recently announced that they are closing their factory in Slough: http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/15421539.Up_to_320_jobs_to_go_as_GSK_shuts_Slough_Horlicks_factory/ This building is well known locally as the Horlicks Building and can be seen by anyone in a train passing along the Great Western Mainline from the west of England into Paddington. Built in 1908, architecturally its most notable features are the large HORLICKS signage that sits above the roof, the castle like tower with it's art-deco clock and particularly from a distance the large circular chimney. There are concerns by many local residents that the site will be bought up by developers and demolished to be replaced by offices or apartments, rather than retained in its current form. As a remnant of Slough's early industrial history, it tells an important part of the town's history and is known as a local landmark to everyone living in the town. To lose it would be a great loss to the town. Read more about the building on this local blog here: https://friendly-bombs.tumblr.com/tagged/Horlicks

The Department for Work and Pensions has brought forward the proposed closure of Farnworth Jobcentre without any meaningful consultation with the local community. The Government claims that it is closing this Jobcentre as part of its "continued drive to deliver public services in more innovative and cost effective ways” without seeming to consider the impact on the local community. Farnworth is a deprived area, and residents rely on the support provided by their local Jobcentre, not only for help in finding employment, but also for benefit advice, access to computers and telephones. Farnworth Jobcentre is extremely busy and is valued by local residents, and to remove yet another service from Farnworth town centre means that unemployed and disabled residents will be further disadvantaged and could be pushed even further into poverty. Farnworth Councillors and I have been contacted by numerous constituents who are very concerned at the impact that this will have on them: Many unemployed or disabled residents of Farnworth, Kearsley and Little Lever simply cannot afford to travel into Bolton town centre. Even if some residents can afford the up-front cost of travel, the cost of reimbursement would be prohibitive as there is a high number of people who sign weekly, and some who sign daily. The closure of Farnworth Jobcentre would not result in savings to the public purse. In addition to the travel cost, it will also take residents considerably longer to travel into Bolton, increasing the likelihood of late attendance or missed appointments, which could lead to benefit sanctions. It would also cause greater inconvenience, including less time to spend searching for employment. People who have caring responsibilities are concerned that they will not be able to get to work on time, because of the extra travel time to get to Bolton Jobcentre. Residents with mobility problems will find it more difficult to attend Bolton Jobcentre, particularly those who are not able to use public transport and do not have access to private transport. The Government is currently consulting on health and disability issues, yet is at the same time making access to services more difficult. Bolton has two Jobcentres only a few hundred yards apart, yet Farnworth will be left with none. This simply makes no sense. Surely it would be better to close one of the Bolton Jobcentres and keep the one in Farnworth open? The Government requires claimants to attend more frequent face-to-face interviews than ever before, so it is vital that this service is retained in Farnworth We call upon the Department for Work and Pensions not to close Farnworth Jobcentre and ensure that its services are retained in Farnworth town centre.