Annie Bynnol

When we helped write Laws that the ECHR it was for the benefit of the Judges in sitting in Courts dealing with Human Rights issues all over Europe, very rarely were these cases heard in Strasbourg- except the UK! We helped write the Laws, Convention and Structure and Organization. We signed the the Convention in 1951. The ECHR Laws was the minimum standard that national Laws had to meet.. Unlike the rest of Europe the UK legal structure which meant that until the UK Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, UK people had to use Strasbourg. This is no longer the case as our English and Scots Law mimics our ECHR Law and allowing right wing populists to save their political careers by tampering with our rights sets a very dangerous precedent.

Royal Mail stamp swap out scheme website includes this contact Alternatively, you can call Royal Mail’s customer services on 03457 740740 if you need help. It is open Monday to Friday 7am-8pm, Saturday 8am-6pm and Sunday 9am-4pm.

Why would anybody want to use train services to/from Victoria? A new station at Waverley would be served by current services on the Lincoln line.

And costs more in time and money which probably brings forward the time when a decision needs to be made.

Totally agree that banding about such figures is alarmist, unhelpful and clearly made up. Any downward movement in life expectancy caused by air pollution would be hidden by upward movement due better healthcare, disease control, preventive care and treatments. Removal and reduction of some pollutants since the 50's will also have contributed.

Bernard Street- Bernard Road -Effingham Road- Saville Street - Burngreave- Rutland Road- Infirmary Road Less than 4 miles. Less than 15 minutes

Supertram or Maltravers Rd,- Cricket Inn Rd- Broad St- Park Square- A61- Infirmary Road Less than 3 miles. Less than 12 minutes.

No idea what the Liberal Democrats think, I have never viewed their environmentalist agenda as anything but uninformed, alarmist, negative, divisive and irrelevant. Please don't mention the Greens! If you were to ask: 'Does the scientific evidence establish a link between levels and types of pollution and a wide range of ill health issues?' Yes it does. 'Does the scientific evidence establish a link between levels and types of pollution and serious ill health issues?' Yes it does. 'Does the scientific evidence establish a link between levels and types of pollution and a persons' death?' Only indirectly - smoking cigarettes does not kill either, but it does, like air pollution, trigger, contribute, compound disease like lung cancer, coronary disease, other cancers(lip, pharynx and oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, larynx, cervix uteri (women), kidney and renal pelvis, bladder, liver, colon, and rectum; also acute myeloid leukemia, does. Heart diseases including rheumatic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease. Vascular including atherosclerosis, aortic aneurysm, and other arterial diseases. COPD includes emphysema, bronchitis, and chronic airways obstruction. Pneumonia, influenza and tuberculosis does. This is not about taking sides. P.S. A (Lord) Mayor in Sheffield is not a political role and when in office should only promote the City and when in office remove themselves from politics and decision making.

Like radioactivity there are no "... safe limits..." when it comes to many types of air pollution. Any measurable level will cause harm so levels are set with the aim of constantly reducing the most harmful pollutants. The current levels used set by Governments are considered way to high by medics. Our Government has been told that they are breaking their own laws on the level they set. Pollution levels are never constant and medically it is the peak levels that cause the real damage to health. As I said, in Sheffield these variations are greatly exaggerated by temperature inversions can trap air for days the in whole city area which is in the 'bowl' i.e. up about 250m(820ft).

That is correct. Within Government set limits, a Council can submit a plan as to how they are going to meet specific Government set targets. Before the Government releases the monet it has to approve the plan and require long term proof of delivery. The focus is on the benefit to the health of the population. Every Sheffield resident, interested party and local and national business was asked to get involved- many like me did. Two very local characteristics impacted the decision making: The geographical 'bowl' we live in that creates enormous pollution peaks during on the city centre during 'temperature inversions'. The huge increase in the city centre population happening and proposed As both of these factors are closely linked to vehicle emissions a CAZ was seen to be the best option. If we all lived on the top of a hill, the solutions would be different.

Your attempts re-write history of what happened in our hospitals have already failed several times as you continue, in your words, to promote your "...very biased..." opinions. Repeating your clueless opinions on how outpatients and clinics* and care homes** operated, how staffing, timetabling and management of resources were reallocated in thousands of hospitals around the world is as always, unconvincing. *I attended clinics regularly at RHH and NHG in 2020/1. **Relative with a full NHS continuing healthcare plan,

I get it that you base your invention of the "...official version..." on newspaper reporting of a classified US Department of Energy report long superseded by the report of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI), executive head of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) who speaks directly to the US President. I would suggest that the ODNI report based on the work of all 18 intelligence (including the US Department of Energy report) is more reliable than your interpretation of newspaper reporters interpretation of a report they have not seen months previously.

The US Department of Energy assessment used by the Trump Republican appointed boss of the FBI was prepared in February 2023. The headlines was released to the media(your sources) but they were unaware of content. This you invent as the latest "...official version." Five months later, with access and the authority to require all intelligence agencies in the US(except the CIA) declassified and published the assessments of the eight involved intelligence agencies(inc. FBI) and concluded the following: "Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19 Origins UNCLASSIFIED (Seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) (Seal of the National Intelligence Council) Key Takeaways The IC assesses that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of COVID-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of COVID-19 emerged. After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.  Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps. The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARSCoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged. The IC—and the global scientific community—lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest COVID-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses. China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of COVID-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China."

When did you decide that it is the role of the US Department of Energy to provide the "...official version..." of the United States Intelligence Community assessment of China Lab Leaks? Or with a Trump appointed Republican is the only head of the United States Intelligence Community that has 'moderate confidence' in a China Lab Leaks theory? The China Leaks theory might have some more credibility in America if it was supported by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or FVEY (only feasible) or any one of the hundreds of global, national, commercial, public, academic, charitable, institutions who have been looking at the SARS viruses for the tell tale history of mutation in the genes.

There are(was) two 'Home Instead' franchises, covering North and South of our area. Not cheap but they did provide regular carers who were reliable and prompt and provided cover. The managers are very good at solving problems. It is very important to build up good relationships all round. Hospitals only get involved when 'discharging' admitted patients. There are no Council run homes suitable. Involve their GP/Practice straight away- they have done it before. Involve the Council straight away and even if they provide nothing to start with- the assessment of need builds up and most 'users', relatives etc. need to know how difficult/easy the processes are. Even if you can mobilize friends and family begin using a Care company. Don't become the carer yourself- stay at being a relative and friend.