Cars today [2014] are essential, this may because local transport is lacking or the many reasons why so many Brit's commute. Many cars have only one occupant. Cars have become Egotistical Status symbols. They are lasting longer and longer and are now so cheap to buy (pre-owned) the UK has a log-jam problem and a serious parking problem. The current Gov's Road Tax system is abused and should be geared to the smaller car whilst penalising i.e. - HUGE 4x4's used totally out of context.

As Yorkshire Wildlife Trust’s first ever nature reserve, Askham Bog has special significance. In fact in 1946 the Trust was created with the purpose of looking after the site which was bought to save it from development. A brief summary of the issues relating to the proposals is as follows: Askham Bog supports an exceptionally high biodiversity with healthy populations of numerous nationally rare species, and the only regional populations of many others. Particular rarities include gingerbread sedge carex elongata (largest population in England), numerous water beetles and the fen square-spot moth diarsia florida. Askham Bog has been recognised as an exceptional habitat for two centuries. It is highly valued both by the population of York and by a national and international community of naturalists and ecologists. Just two miles from the city centre it offers a peaceful place to walk and enjoy nature. The importance of the site is entirely dependent on the integrity of the local water table and it is exceptionally sensitive to any disturbance of that. We are concerned that these housing proposals will irreversibly damage the hydrology of Askham Bog and its special interest will be lost. There has been no information presented to indicate that this will not be the case. We are also concerned about the huge increase in recreational access on to the reserve. There is highly likely to be unmanaged access from a range of locations, particularly from dog walkers and young people. Whilst we welcome large numbers of people on to many of our sites, Askham Bog is too small and fragile to cope with this high volume of unregulated access. We therefore consider that the site should not be allocated for development and that doing so would result in significant loss of the important wildlife features of the site. This allocation is therefore contrary to the Council’s own policies regarding the protection of biodiversity and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. http://www.ywt.org.uk/news/2014/06/12/help-save-york%E2%80%99s-wildlife http://www.ywt.org.uk/York

Within the recognized "stink zone" of 1 km there are 4 schools, a pre-school nursery, a nursing home, our rugby and cricket fields, two small food-producing companies and half the houses and shops of Whitchurch!   There are huge problems throughout the UK with the food-fed ADs because of the all-pervading smell they give off 24/7 including the ones at Cannock, Rothwell, Cannington, Plymouth, Cumbernauld and Farington.  And not far from us at Harper Adams University the digester has collapsed twice causing massive digestate discharge covering the road, fields and polluting the river and two boreholes contaminating water supplies. We do not want  to suffer the smell or the inherent threats to local wildlife from seepage and spillage.  The applicant, which is a huge coldstore and warehousing company, is prepared to put our Town at risk for the sake of the massively subsidised AD  rather than pay Scottish Power to upgrade the electricity supply required for its industrial expansion.  The Environment Agency has already said that the Company should look for a different site but the local planning Committee is nevertheless prepared to support the application! There is a website set up with full details. WWW.whitchurchad525.co.UK Help protect our market town. Thankyou

David Ross is being lined up as the new Chair of OFSTED. This is wrong - he is a Tory donor and the founder of a chain of academies - the very schools that will be inspected by OFSTED - this is a huge conflict of interest. How is it possible to keep State Education out of politics when this kind of back door cronyism is happening? OFSTED should be about improving the education of our children and nothing else.

As UK and EU citizens, and human beings, we can not accept this. We call on David Cameron to immediately reverse the UK's stance. If we do not do this then how can the UK or the EU pretend to be democratic communities? If you are an EU citizen and you care about Human Rights, please sign this petition. Links: http://seedfreedom.in/un-to-outlaw-corporations-human-rights-abuses/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/06/eu-aims-to-scuttle-treaty-on-human-rights-abuses/

If licences are made obligatory only for airguns, I am convinced that people will buy crossbows instead. These are even more lethal and altogether much nastier weapons. Lets reduce the number of accidents and reckless incidents endangering wild life and humans not increase them!

The campaign follows new research revealing that more than 80% of young women who use sunbeds in Liverpool are unaware it can lead to an increased risk of skin cancer. Since 2000 the number of new cases of skin cancer in Liverpool has increased by 129%, more than double the increase seen nationally. Public health experts say lives will be saved if councils have more powers to regulate sunbed salons.

The government is thrusting disabled and disadvantaged people into depression, despair, and even suicide. It must stop.

It is important to Breaking Bad fans as the series finished in 2013 and everyone misses it, a game however would be dateless and be a treasure to play for eternity.

If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate. This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government. This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion. There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!) No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions. It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.

The effect of GM crops is very difficult to evaluate as trials can cause unknown effects that may have long term effects. The use of genetically modified crops that include "built in" pesticides can have detrimental effects on the nervous system of Bees who are already in decline. The full effects of GM crops are not known and the British Farming system is not a suitable or safe environment for trials.

Betting is a drug like many others. We don't allow adverts for cigarettes on TV why Betting? Betting ruins lives for many. In addition it gives the suggestion to children that sport and betting are intrinsically linked and will lead many youngsters to get into betting. In betting no one wins except the large bookmakers.