I think it speaks for itself as to why it is important. Bradford Council claim to be in line with all other Councils. How is £85 in line with £10 for exactly the same thing? The Council made 3.33 million pounds doing this in the council tax year 2012/2013. Un-waged people are struggling just to pay council tax they also have to pay bedroom tax if they are renting privately, benefits do not take these taxes into consideration and neither do Bradford Council. Bradford Council have already announced Council Tax rises for the 2 years to come. During the Council Tax year 2012/2013 Bradford Council summonsed 1 in 4 households for Council Tax. With the current economic climate more and more people will be summoned as less people are able to afford to pay Council Tax, why should people already struggling be charged £85 per summons whilst others are charged only £10 for exactly the same thing?

"Competing companies have a clear incentive to get all of these elements right, so consumers do not take their business elsewhere.This puts them under constant pressure to improve in order to win and keep customers, and to gain market share. At present, water and sewerage services in England and Wales are not subject to this kind of competition. Most consumers are served by one of 21 monopoly companies. Only large business consumers can switch supplier if they can get a better deal elsewhere." (p. 3, "Putting water consumers first – how can we challenge monopoly companies to improve? Water today, water tomorrow" - http://bit.ly/1k53LjF ) Checking that all the 21 water companies do meet the basic service standards is not acceptable when the documentation unveils that some of those companies are often not able to even meet the targets set (as Pollution incidents sewerage, Serious pollution incidents sewerage, Pollution incidents (water), Discharge permit compliance, Water supply interruptions - hours per total properties served and Internal sewer flooding incident often appeared to be below the customer expectations or, worse, significantly below target or expectation for the year 2011/2012). [source: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulating/reporting/rpt_los2012table] Nevertheless, as customers we are unable to counteract the poor customer service, the rising costs for water and sewage as we are forced into a contract with the company serving the local area. Further reading here: http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/prs_web_1007pricelimits http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487626/Dont-water-bills-ministers-plead-suppliers.html

Margot was Britain's greatest ever ballerina and Rudolf changed the role of men in ballet in the west forever. Their unlikely partnership was the greatest in ballet's history and inspired many to take up ballet and brought pleasure to millions. It made Britain's Royal Ballet the greatest ballet company in the world after the Bolshoi and the Kirov. It is a disgrace that there is no memorial to these wonderful dancers and their partnership. This should be changed in time for the centenary celebrations of Margot's birth (18 May 1919).

Banks and financial institutions can make millions from risky speculations. However, when these go wrong, as happened in 2008, billions of pounds of public money were used to bail out the banks and save them from the consequences of their risk taking. Since the 2008 crash the total paid in bonuses will this year pass through the £80bn barrier – some three and a half times the amount banks have paid in Corporation tax and the bank levy – and equates to around £1,250 for every man, woman and child in the Britain. This Tax is not intended to be punitive: nicknamed the "Robin Hood Tax" it is, like the folk hero, intended to redistribute wealth and help those in difficulty. If we, the public and the tax payers, must share the financial risks of banks' trading then it seems simply fair that, at other times, we should also receive some benefit. This money can be distributed and spent to the benefit of all - in the UK, abroad and for the environment.

There's an obesity crisis. Despite the premature deaths of millions in the UK from obesity-related illnesses, shoppers still can't make healthy choices - because foods are full of stealth sugars, which don't appear clearly on the labels.

We run the risk that young people in particular will be so protected from risk that they don't grow up having "tested the boundaries". Since 1985 the Marlborough Brandt Group, a small charity in Marlborough Wiltshire, has sent over 1000 young people from our secondary schools to live with families and work in our link community of Gunjur in The Gambia, West Africa alongside young Gambians. All of these young people have benefited from this experience in terms of their personal and professional development and their understanding of the world beyond their community. Health and safety now dictates that a) we spend large sums of our charitable money for insurance cover b) large amounts of time conducting a risk analysis, which is almost meaningless in a rural African context and c) we consider stopping the programme and thus depriving young people of an extraordinary life-changing experience. This is a national issue and must be debated or our young in UK will be deprived a proper, well-rounded education.

So far a residents association has collected 700 signatures from the immediate area and it is necessary to escalate this to allow a greater response to this ill-advised proposal by a Council that has no interest in listening to its residents.

These centres provide crucial universal and targeted support for parents, carers and young children. This withdrawal of funding will cause irreparable damage to the service, increase risk and vulnerability across the county, and mark a reversal of the 'Every Child Matters' agenda which is striving to eradicate inequality for under 5’s.

This is important because the Coalition Government does not have, indeed has never had, the support of, or mandate from, a majority of the electorate for the policies it is pursuing, Moreover, by its actions and omissions it has become very unpopular with the electorate, to the extent that they now hold it in contempt for its uncaring, unjust and cynical policies, its waste or stripping of national assets, and its undue influence by and preferences for the private sector, instead of serving and safeguarding the public interest, its paramount responsibility.

We have recently seen a huge discrepancy in pay rises between university bosses and university lecturers. For example Dominic Shellard at De Montfort University received an 11.6% rise while his lecturing staff received a 1% rise. Keith Burnett at Sheffield University received a 29% rise while his lecturing staff received a 1% rise. Edward Acton at the University of East Anglia received an increase of 8.6% while his staff received an increase of 1% and John Last at Norwich University of the Arts received a 13% pay increase while his staff received an increase of 1%. The national average for Russel Group Vice Chancellors pay increase is reportedly 7.8% while university lecturers are receiving a 1% rise this year and a real terms pay cut of 13% since 2008. The success of each university is a joint effort of all staff, Lecturers and Vice Chancellors alike, and no singular staff member should take credit for the hard work of everyone involved and be the sole recipient of large pay increases. Two excellent examples of camaraderie are Paul Curran of City University London and Simon Gaskell from of Queen Mary University London, the latter spurned a rise of £50,000, which will now fund five scholarships. Unfortunately voluntary rejections of inappropriate rises in salaries like this are rare. References: Dominic Shellard, http://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/about-dmu-documents/board-of-governors/dmu-annual-accounts-2012-2013.pdf Keith Burnett, http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/fury-at-105000-pay-rise-for-sheffield-university-boss-sir-keith-burnett-after-he-refused-to-raise-employees-salaries-to-the-living-wage-9084027.html Edward Acton and John Last http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/inflation_busting_pay_rises_for_bosses_of_university_of_east_anglia_and_norwich_university_of_the_arts_1_3195023 Paul Curran & Simon Gaskell http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/vice-chancellors-reject-pay-rise/2009824.article

With rising sea levels and climate change (whatever the cause of that change) the problem of flooding is not going to get better, it will only get worse. Everyone, especially the Government, needs to be better educated about the management of our water courses, or hydrology, in order to make informed, intelligent choices about where we focus our limited financial resources. Flooding caused devastation to people, our economy and our environment. We must act now to change Government spending habits which currently serve to increase flooding rather than decrease it. I refer people to the well referenced article in the Guardian as a starting point: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes Follow the references for more details.

Under plans from NHS England, it is intended to close three quarters of UK's specialist brain cancer centres who provide targeted radiotherapy treatment. This goes against everything that the NHS is supposed to stand for, meaning that possibly many additional miles will be travelled to one of the remaining few centres left. This is a disaster for patients and families alike and lead to totally unnecessary loss of life. Doctors, patients and families alike are furious as NHS England is rejecting doctors advice and is condemning patients to invasive brain surgery or total brain radiotherapy, whilst not using available resources sensibly. That NHS supposed transparency is once again not in existence means that already hard pressed families and patients with this invidious disease are left far behind their European and USA counterparts. It is a total travesty if these closures go ahead with the NHS Board members obviously having no knowledge of how this affects the patients and families lives on a daily basis.