Rushcliffe Borough Council have proposed plans to fine homeless people £100 under the 2014 "Public Space Protection Order". Rushcliffe Borough Council believe that the rough sleepers cause a "nuisance" to those who live locally. Fines can be increased to £1000 following non-payment of the original fine. The idea of fining those who already have so little that they are forced to sleep out in the cold is a cruel and heartless act. This is attacking vulnerable persons and does not aid in resolving the homeless issues. Other campaigns have successfully halted other councils from imposing similar fines. More info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37693295?client=ms-android-htc-rev

Can you imagine being raped? I was assaulted once when I was a teenager. Not raped, but they groped me and threatened me with violence should I continue to fight them. The rage I felt then of being powerless and being subjected to that violation has stayed with me for over 20 years. Imagine if they had raped me and then when it went to court, the lawyers decided that it was relevant to talk about my sexual history however colourful or not it was. Does that sound right to you? What happened to me was without my consent, I said I didn’t want to be touched. But they did it anyway. Whether or not I’d had sex an hour before, whether or not I’d go on to have a threesome days later, does not change the fact that what happened was wrong. If you’re raped, your sexual history is irrelevant and should never be used as evidence to prove a rape. There’s a good article in The Guardian which has driven me to start this campaign, (written by a lawyer): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/courts-judge-rape-sexual-history-ched-evans-case. If you agree with this, sign this petition: consent is key in rape trials, sexual history is not.

In 2010, the US government passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) obliging US citizens, regardless of dual citizenships and even though they may not have lived in the US since childhood, to self-report their non-US assets and to pay US tax on foreign income if the foreign tax should be less than US tax. For example, if such persons sell their home, then they are liable for American capital gains tax on the sale as the UK levies no such tax. FATCA obliges all non-US financial institutions to search through their customer databases to identify those customers suspected of being US citizens and to disclose the account holders' names, addresses, and the transactions of most types of account. It requires foreign financial institutions to require all foreign account holders (not just US citizens) to certify their foreign status. In 2014, The Economist called FATCA's "extraterritoriality stunning even by Washington's standards." FATCA potentially affects 173,470 people born in the US by chance but many of whom left the country as small children and have since been resident in the UK and are UK citizens. Following FATCA's passage, many such "accidental Americans" suffered closure of their bank accounts: a 2014 survey of US citizens in other countries by Democrats Abroad found that 12.7% of respondents had been denied financial services by their banks, making it harder for accidental Americans to live and work in their countries of residence. Accidental Americans often no owe US income tax, but must spend thousands of dollars in accounting fees to prove that fact, and face potential fines of tens of thousands of dollars for paperwork errors. Those who have spent their lives planning for their retirement without considering the US tax consequences of the non-US financial instruments they hold may find that US taxation wipes out most of their returns on investments. UK residents suspected to be US citizens are separated out at their financial institutions for differential treatment, based upon their place of birth and nationality. Discrimination according to national origin is prohibited in most countries and by the European Convention on Human Rights. American Citizens Abroad, a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of the millions of Americans residing outside the United States, points out that FATCA's problem is citizenship-based taxation. The United States and Eritrea are the only countries in the world which impose taxation and reporting requirements on citizens living abroad permanently. The Guardian reports that Americans living abroad feel financially terrorized by FATCA requirements. According to research by Democrats Abroad: "These survey results show the intense impact FATCA is having on overseas Americans. Their financial accounts are being closed, their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain, some Americans are being denied promotion or partnership in business because of FATCA reporting requirements and some are planning or contemplating renouncing their US citizenship”. The US will not allow accidental Americans to renounce citizenship until they have filed five years’ of tax returns. Due to the rise in applications, the fee for renouncing citizenship was raised by roughly 400 percent in 2015 to $2,350. According to a recent piece in The Economist, a UK resident who was born in America but moved to Britain as a child, “recently received a huge bill from the IRS [the US Internal Revenue Service], out of the blue, for many years of unfiled taxes. He had not realised that he owed anything; he had always paid taxes promptly in Britain. The IRS was so aggressive that he feared he might lose his technology business; he even discussed divorce with his wife as a way to shield their assets. In the end, he settled for a six-figure sum.” In 2014, the UK Government entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement whereby financial institutions in the UK report information about US accounts to HMRC. HMRC then provides the information to the US. The UK government has estimated that the cost to British businesses will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years, in order to locate the US citizens. HMRC estimates its own one-off IT and staff project costs at approximately £5m, with ongoing annual costs of £1.4m from this year. FATCA’s effects on UK citizens who by accident of birth are deemed American means that the UK Government’s cooperation with FATCA must end. The relationship between the British state and its citizens is founded on an implicit contract whereby, in exchange for obedience to the law and performance of their civic duties, citizens have a right to the state’s protection.

Animals such as monkeys, meerkats, reptiles and turtles are wild animals who belong in their natural habitat, not in cages and glass tanks in somebody’s home. Over 1000 species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and fish are bred and captured for the exotic pet trade, and it is our argument that the complex social, physical and behavioural needs of these animals cannot be met other than in their natural habitats. Furthermore, there is strong evidence linking the trade in exotic animals with habitat destruction and the extinction of species in the wild. In tandem with the suffering of such animals in transit - including many documented deaths - young animals can grow into dangerous adults which can become unmanageable in domestic environments not conducive to satisfying their welfare needs for increased space and food. As mentioned in the petition above, a similar campaign was launched in Scotland by the charity One Kind to great effect. With the backing of RSPCA, PDSA, Animal Welfare Party, Captured Animals Protection Society, Four Paws, Wild Futures, Born Free Foundation, plus a host of other significant organizations, the Scottish campaign instigated a review of Scottish Government policy, with the debate centering on the introduction of a Positive List System, which would permit for the keeping of an exotic pet only if its suitability to life in private ownership were incontrovertibly assessed by such a system using clear, transparent and evidence based criteria collated on species conservation, the dangers of invasive disease, ease of good husbandry - including proof of appropriate knowledge of needs and care - and the clear availability of care guidelines, and enforcement measures. In order to ascertain the exact number of licenses issued by local authorities in Wales I contacted all 22 councils. At the time of this petition's submission I have received replies from exactly half of these, making the number of licenses issued by local authorities to exotic pet shops so far 68. This number, of course, does not include internet sites, whether separate to or part of the pet shops mentioned. Thus, it is clear that thousands of exotic animals are being traded in Wales. The welfare of such animals is a matter for public concern, and I believe a debate should take place about the propriety of such a trade in Wales. Fundamental to any overview must be the suitability of wild reptiles and large birds to lives as exotic pets, and the regulating of standards for their care, with the ultimate objective of ending the trade in such species altogether. Please help us to end this vile trade in Wales by signing this petition. It doesn't matter where you are, your signature will help show the Government of Wales the strength of feeling against the capture, importation, breeding, and sale of wild animals in Wales.

PERSONAL PRIVACY: The Digital Economy Bill currently before Parliament will introduce compulsory age verification without guaranteeing privacy protections for subscribers. This omission risks users’ personal details and private sexual preferences being exploited for commercial gain and/or leaked into the public domain. SEXUAL FREEDOM: Consensual adult sex should not be outlawed, yet this Bill will prohibit the publication of depictions of sexual activities that are legal to perform. This Bill imposes a financial burden on free, amateur and niche commercial websites, affecting sexual minorities by denying them from freely expressing their sexuality.

I believe that every person, even those who are serving prison sentences, have the right to play their part in deciding the future of the country by voting in national and local elections. Denying people in prisons the right to vote serves no purpose of deterrence or reform. Britain's blanket ban on prisoners voting dates back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870, and is out of date and out of step with the majority of European countries. Allowing people in prison to vote would do nothing to undermine public safety, and would do no harm to anyone or anything. I see it as an important part in the process of preparation for eventual release and reintegration into society. It is about dignity, and the principle that in a democracy everybody counts. Just now our own country is experiencing a rise in homophobic and hate crimes, our prisons are dangerously overcrowded and understaffed, and levels of re offending are alarmingly high. Britain's closest ally is moving into unknown territory as Donald Trump prepares to take the Presidency and bring in his agenda of descrimination and isolationism. The world waits with bated breath. There has never been a time when it has been more important to promote good will, peace and tolerance. Every small act that benefits another person helps to bring our world into balance again, and to restore the security we so need. Some folk say that when someone has turned his back on society by committing a crime worthy of imprisonment, then he should forfeit the right to engage in the voting system of that society. But I argue that the punishment given out by the court is the sentence he/she serves, and society should not extend it by excluding that person further. We have no right to further punish our prison inmates. Rather we should be encouraging engagement with society. And every move to make life better for someone is another small contribution to a better world. We need less vindictiveness and more tolerance in the way we treat our prison population, and I so strongly believe that allowing people in prison to vote is one small step in that direction.

Because there can be no right in a world where hospitals are filled with civilian casualties from towns turned into warzones, where parents dig their murdered children from the rubble of their homes, where neighbourhoods resemble scenes from history books and those who should be protecting them are actively contributing to the wholesale destruction of life.

Residents of Brunswick and Regency wards have been reporting disturbing levels of antisocial behavior, noise, criminal damage and violence all with one common theme: alcohol. The Council and Police have a duty of care to safeguard all in our community from the damaging effects of alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour.

While we welcome action against anti-social behaviour, Sunderland city council’s proposals for new Public Space Protection Orders seem to be focused on the persecution of homeless individuals. This is particularly apparent in the plans to stop ‘bin raking’. It is a disgrace that in one of the world’s richest countries people need to feed themselves, or make a living, from the contents of public waste bins. Imposing fines on these individuals, and those who beg on our city’s streets, would be pointless and counter-productive. It would serve only to distress the individuals concerned and increase the work and, therefore, the cost of police, community workers and the CPS. We appeal to Sunderland City Council to reconsider these plans and to take steps to address the underlying problems of homelessness, poverty and substance dependence. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/beggars-could-face-fines-under-new-sunderland-plans-1-8139928

Department for Transport figures show that a driver impaired or distracted by their phone was a contributory factor in 492 accidents in Britain in 2014, including 21 that were fatal and 84 classed as serious. (BBC, 2016) AA statistics also suggest that up to a third of UK drivers use their phone while driving. But despite the widespread nature of the problem, and the danger it places other road users in, drivers can be caught twice before even going to court and through legal loopholes can still maintain their license at this stage. Lee Martin was killed by a driver using their phone at the wheel whilst out cycling. The man who killed him had at least 6 previous convictions for using a phone at the wheel but had managed to keep his driving license. Had the authorities been tougher and taken away his license then Lee Martin would not have died. Using a phone whilst driving sends out a clear message that you believe that your call is more important than somebody else's life. If people with that level of arrogance are on our roads, they need to be prevented from getting behind the wheel.

The CCTV Cameras are required to record and act as a deterrent against crimes being carried out on residential properties throughout the Village of Deri.

A spit hood is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it - and the Metropolitan Police want to start using these restraints on people across London. Spit hoods are degrading and inhuman, and can be used on anyone. In Suffolk, a spit hood was placed on an 11 year old girl with severe learning difficulties. Having a bag put over your head while being held down would be traumatic for anyone, let alone a vulnerable child. The police already have handcuffs, batons, leg restraints and are allowed to use force... Do they really need to use spit hoods too? There appears to be little solid proof they are actually necessary, but what is certain is that they can be dangerous, and cause significant panic for a detainee, whilst officers could protect themselves with masks and eye protection instead. The image of their use has been described as reminiscent of torture and horror films. They can prevent recognition of urgent health issues involving breathing and swallowing, and with inequality a hot topic currently for the UK society at large (including the Police), there are questions around whether or not their use could deepen social divides and exacerbate inequality issues, particularly bearing in mind their recent use against those with mental health issues. Major police forces around the UK don't allow the use of spit hoods - and they shouldn't be allowed to be used in London.