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.

They are already using enough equipment to apprehend and pacify offenders.It is very worrying that the met police are going to use this in custody suites where there are no independent witnesses. Police officers are not in a position to establish whether an individual is in a satisfactory medical condition to carry out this forceful and highly stressful action.

There will soon be a fatal accident. It is a residential road that is used for speeding by a variety of motorists. The noise level is awful at night and causes disruption.

After the recent murder of a well loved local man in St helens town centre who was tragically killed by a member of the public carrying a knife, the people of St helens feel that we need more measures in place to protect ourselves and our security staff when out enjoying ourselves with friends. The people of St helens need to feel more safe when out in pubs, bars and clubs and would like to campaign for searches into clubs, metal detection on doors for people carrying weapons, and stab vests for our door staff risking their lives to protect the community. Unfortunately Danny fox the young man who was killed tragically lost his life after trying to look out for other members of the public and this is something we don't want to see happen again in our town. I know the whole community has really pulled together at this very sad time, and I think a lot of the people of St helens will agree with these measures being put into place. So can we please get as many people as we can to sign the petition and show our support for making St helens a safer place to live in honour of Danny.

It's important because the police are too gung-ho when they are chasing thieves in cars and too many innocent people have lost their lives. More will lose their lives if this isn't stopped. A car is not worth the price of lives that can be lost.

When someone goes to prison they aren’t the only one to be punished: their children and loved ones are also punished by being separated from their father, mother, husband or wife. When a foreign national goes to prison for more than 12 months the law says they must be automatically deported at the end of their sentence, meaning that they get punished more than twice over for their crime. But worse than that, their families (who haven’t committed any crime) then face a stark choice between being separated forever from their loved one or being forced into exile from their country of birth and being separated from the rest of their family and friends here. My Story: My husband was in a road accident and was devastated when he learned that he was responsible for someone’s death. This resulted in him receiving a 5-year prison sentence and, because he is a foreigner, he will be deported at the end of his time in prison. I, too, was very sad when I learned that a person had died. I was distressed when my husband went to prison and I had to learn how to live without him. But now I am feeling anguish at having to either face a lifetime of being separated from him or to move abroad and be thousands of miles away from my family, friends and roots here in my country of birth, unable to afford the flight home to visit because flights in his country cost a fortune relative to salaries there (even assuming I can get a job given that I don’t speak the language well enough). This law was brought in because it is Parliament’s “view” that the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest. But is this really the case? This “view” is not backed up by any evidence. It may be comforting to think that we are safer if we deport foreign criminals but this is not the case. Aside from the fact that we may be at risk from those people any time we travel abroad, any public interest is cancelled out by the fact that at the same time as deporting foreign criminals we are also receiving British criminals deported back to the U.K. from abroad, thus punishing even more innocent families who have had nothing to do with their family member’s crime. Even more importantly, figures published by the Ministry of Justice show that ex-offenders who live with their family are less likely to re-offend than those who don’t live with their families, and those who are homeless are more likely to re-offend. (1) Deportation results in separation from family and can mean homelessness – in other words, deportation is actually increasing the risk to the public of re-offending. So aside from the inhumanity of this law in punishing the innocent, it is actually CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Thank you for reading this. If you are signing this because your own loved one is facing deportation, please try to include your own story, however brief. (After you have signed, a small box will appear on the right, saying "Tell others why you signed".) I’m grateful to everyone who signs this petition and would like to make one more request: Please SHARE this with as many people as you can. Please also consider giving a donation to 38 degrees, who have made this and many other petitions possible. (1) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491119/re-offending-release-waves-1-3-spcr-findings.pdf - see Table 4.5 on p.20 (p.26 of the pdf)

People with facial differences are faced with discrimination every day. Peoples perceptions and attitudes can be discriminating and demoralising. People with facial difference should be treat equally with the same opportunities as everyone else. Have laws and policies to protect them from negative attitudes and protection from bullying and unacceptable behaviour from society

A speed awareness can modify and change driving behaviours, fines /points are less effective. Might save more lives on the road!

In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.